get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about read-only semantics, required permissions, behavior for an unknown or foreign project_id, or response shape beyond a fragmentary field list. The only implicit signal is the 'get' prefix in the name, which is not part of the description text.

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?

It is short, but it is a terse comma-separated list of data fields rather than a front-loaded purpose statement, so the reader must reconstruct the tool's function. No sentence is wasted, but none is well structured for tool selection.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out — yet the entire description is devoted to return-value fragments. Given a required, undocumented project_id and no annotations, the definition leaves the agent short of what it needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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% and the sole parameter project_id is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description never mentions the identifier at all, so it adds no meaning about where the project_id comes from or how to obtain it (e.g., via list_projects).

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 is a noun-phrase field list ('Параметры проекта: расходы за сегодня/вчера/всего, число ссылок OK, настройки автоснятия') rather than a verb+resource statement; the retrieving action is only inferable from the name get_project. It identifies the resource (project parameters) but does not differentiate it from siblings such as get_project_links, list_projects, or get_url_anchors.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer list_projects or get_project_links instead, and no prerequisites or error conditions. The agent must guess the selection rule from the name alone.

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