get_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it lists the returned fields, explains the status values, describes the embed effect, and clarifies what this tool does not provide (timeline data), which is a meaningful distinction.

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 four concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers return values, embed usage, and alternative tools in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place and contributes to correct tool invocation.

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 read tool with one required parameter and one optional embed parameter, the description is complete. It states what the tool returns, how to enrich the response, and when to use sibling tools instead. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit list of returned fields.

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% because the required id parameter lacks a description. The description compensates by calling it a 'numeric id' and explicitly tying it to the project. For embed, the description adds semantic meaning by explaining that tags and fields include attached tags and custom field values, going beyond the schema's token list. It doesn't fully describe all embed tokens, but the schema lists them.

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 and resource: 'Fetch a single project by its numeric id.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by naming get_projects for batch fetches and list_project_entries for timeline data, making its scope unambiguous.

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 provides when-to-use alternatives: use get_projects for batch fetches of up to 50 projects, and list_project_entries for the project's timeline. It also gives practical guidance on using embed='tags,fields' to include related data in one round-trip, leaving no ambiguity about tool selection.

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