get_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the burden is low. The description lists returned fields (name, status, etc.) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication needs or error conditions.

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 very concise: three sentences that front-load the purpose, then give usage guidance and a related tool. No extra words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (read-only, one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the main aspects: purpose, when to use, returned fields, and related tool. It could mention authentication implicitly, but overall it is adequately complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the only mention of the parameter 'project_id' is 'по его ID'. This adds minimal meaning about what the integer represents; it does not explain format, range, or how to obtain it.

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 that it retrieves detailed project information by ID and provides context for use (before submitting an offer). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_kwork_details or get_offer, only mentioning submit_offer as related.

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 description explicitly states when to use ('для изучения конкретного проекта перед отправкой предложения') and mentions a related tool (submit_offer). It does not provide exclusions or alternatives like list_projects, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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