aap_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 useful context by stating the return type ('str: JSON') and that it returns 'full project details', which goes beyond the annotations. It does not discuss error handling or not-found behavior, but for a read-only getter with annotations, this is adequate.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The Args and Returns sections are useful, though the Args section duplicates schema information. It earns a 4 because it is concise without excess, but the param documentation could be trimmed.

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-only get operation with an output schema available, the description covers the essential purpose and return format. However, it lacks any usage guidance or detail about what 'full details' means, which would improve completeness. Given the low complexity, this is nearly complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it merely repeats the schema's 'project_id (int): Project ID' without adding any new meaning, such as how to find the project ID or what fields the full details include. This is redundant rather than informative.

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 opens with 'Get full details of an AAP project,' which uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('AAP project'), and specifies scope ('full details'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like aap_list_projects, which presumably returns summaries, and aap_update_project/aap_delete_project, which perform mutations.

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 implies use when you need full details of a single project, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like aap_list_projects or aap_get_project_sync_status. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance are provided.

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