everhour_get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a non-mutating read operation, but the description does not disclose what 'details' includes, whether it returns a full project object, or how errors (e.g., not found) are handled. It adds little beyond the tool name.

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 concise sentence (9 words) that is front-loaded with the action (Get details) and the resource (project). There is zero wasted text.

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?

Given the simple shape (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately states the core function but leaves gaps: it doesn't specify what 'details' includes or mention any error/edge-case behavior. It's minimally viable for a trivial get tool, but a bit more context would be helpful.

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 input schema already describes the single parameter 'id' as 'Project ID', and the description's 'by ID' reinforces this without adding new meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the description provides no extra context about the parameter's format or source.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific project'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_projects (which lists multiple projects) and create/update/delete operations. It unambiguously states that the tool fetches one project by ID.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: the user presumably calls this when they need a single project's details by ID. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., list_projects, get_tasks_for_project), nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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