get_project

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds useful behavioral context about resolution priority and the ability to combine identifiers, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens if no match is found, or any authorization requirements. This is a moderate gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (ESSENTIAL FOR, WHEN TO USE) and the priority line is front-loaded. Every sentence contributes either to understanding the purpose or usage, with no waste. It remains concise despite covering multiple scenarios.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple lookup tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context on usage and resolution behavior. It lacks details about return format and error handling, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools that may handle related concerns.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the precedence (project_id > workspace_path > project_name) and the flexibility to combine any identifiers, which are not evident from the parameter descriptions alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Get project information') and the resource ('project') with multiple identifier options. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'flexible project lookup' with partial information, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling get_project_info, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'WHEN TO USE' section provides concrete scenarios (knowing ID, name, or workspace path, and validating identifiers), and the priority order gives clear guidance on how identifiers are resolved. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.