get_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the field list hints at the response shape, but nothing is said about authentication requirements, error behavior for invalid project IDs, or the cost/side effects of requesting statistics.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though it spends its limited words restating return fields rather than adding routing or constraint context.

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 two-parameter read getter with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, giving the agent a sense of the response. It lacks any note on auth or failure modes, but for this complexity level it is close to adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so both project_id and statistics are already fully documented in the schema, including ID format and boolean semantics. The description merely echoes 'statistics' in its output list and adds no syntax or behavioral detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('project') and enumerates the fields returned (metadata, description, default branch, statistics), so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like update_project, delete_project, or list_my_projects, so it stops short of a 5.

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 prerequisites (e.g. required permissions or project access), and no mention of alternatives such as list_my_projects or get_group. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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