get_project_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable context: the scope is fixed to the project associated with the current Project API Key. It also discloses the kinds of data returned and contains no contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the invocation detail is isolated in the second, making it easy to scan.

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, no-parameter read-only metadata call, the description provides enough context: authentication scope via the API key and the broad categories of returned data. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by the listed fields, though a bit more specificity about the response shape could strengthen it.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the description explicitly says 'No parameters required,' matching the empty schema. This is the appropriate baseline for a parameterless tool and leaves no ambiguity about invocation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'return full details' for the current project. It also enumerates the data categories (languages, customers, namespaces, environments, translation progress), which helps distinguish it from specialized sibling getters like get_languages and get_customers, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

It clearly states when to use it—for project-level details—and notes that no parameters are required. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent to prefer this tool over the more specific sibling getters when only a single category is needed, leaving alternatives implied rather than stated.

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