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 valuable behavioral context by listing the full record fields returned (name, status, owner, stage, board, etc.) and explaining the embed='tags,fields' round-trip optimization. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Four sentences with no redundancy: main action and scope first, then return fields, then embed tip, then alternatives. Front-loaded and every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

The description covers the essential call information: what to pass, what you get back, how to enrich results, and which sibling to use for other use cases. Minor gap: id is implied but not explicitly stated as required, and the schema doesn't mark it required either, which could confuse an agent. Overall adequate for a simple read tool.

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 only 50% (embed has a description, id does not). The description compensates by clarifying that id is a numeric project identifier and gives a concrete embed example ('tags,fields') that maps to actual semantics. It adds meaning beyond the schema for the key parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a single project') scoped by numeric id, and explicitly differentiates from get_projects (batch) and list_project_entries (timeline). This clearly distinguishes it from many sibling project tools.

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?

Provides explicit, actionable alternatives: 'For batch fetches of up to 50 projects at once, use get_projects instead' and 'For the project's timeline ... use list_project_entries'. This gives the agent clear routing conditions and prevents misuse.

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