get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the returned fields and that lookup uses a stable ID, but it does not state error behavior, permissions, or explicitly confirm read-only semantics.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the purpose and follows with a compact, useful list of returned content. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the returned fields. It would be complete at 5 if it noted error or not-found behavior, but that is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'stable ID' adds modest meaning beyond the schema's 'id.primaryKey', but there are no complex constraints requiring further explanation.

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?

Clearly specifies a read action ('Get full detail'), the resource ('project'), and the lookup key ('stable ID'). The returned field list distinguishes it from list_projects and other get_* siblings.

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 use case is evident: retrieve full details for a single project by ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous for an agent.

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