get_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the return fields and the embed parameter for one-round-trip optimization, but does not contradict 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 sentences, each essential: first covers purpose and return fields, second covers embed usage and alternatives. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers return fields, parameter usage, and alternatives adequately. No missing information that would hinder correct invocation.

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 50%; id is straightforward and described implicitly, embed has schema description ('Comma-separated embeds') and description adds context about including tags/fields in one round-trip, adding value beyond schema.

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 'Fetch a single project (Capsule's term: 'case') by its numeric id', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming get_projects for batch fetches and list_project_entries for timeline.

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?

Explicitly states when to use alternatives: 'For batch fetches of up to 50 projects at once, use get_projects instead. For the project's timeline... use list_project_entries.' This provides clear usage context and exclusions.

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