get_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return scope (plan and assembly list) but doesn't mention permissions, error behavior, or any side effects. For a get operation, this is acceptable but minimal, lacking details like whether the plan is full or summarized.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no unnecessary words. It is concise and to the point.

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 is adequate for a simple fetch but lacks detail about the structure of the plan and assembly list. Given no output schema and the presence of sibling tools like get_plan and list_projects, more context would help disambiguate when to use this tool over alternatives.

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 schema fully documents project_id with description 'Project UUID', so the description adds no new meaning. The tool description doesn't elaborate on how project_id is used or any format expectations beyond the schema, but the schema is sufficient.

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 the action (get) and resource (project), and specifies that it includes the plan and assembly list, which distinguishes it from a simple project listing or plan-only retrieval. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the scope is evident from the wording.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance is provided, but the description implies that this tool is for retrieving a project along with its plan and assembly list. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is enough to infer the intended use.

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