get_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and 'inspect,' but it doesn't explicitly state that no modifications occur or disclose potential error behaviors or side effects. It does mention branch and auth parameters, adding some useful context, but not rich behavioral detail.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a usage hint, then an Args block. It front-loads the key information and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The output schema is present, so return-value details are not needed. The description covers the purpose, usage context, and all parameters, making it sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly. It's a straightforward read tool, and the description is complete for that complexity.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description provides meaningful explanations for all four parameters: project key/ID, JWT token, API key, and branch with a default. This fully compensates for the schema gap and gives agents the necessary context for correct invocation.

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 a Symbols project's current data (components, pages, designSystem, state),' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like get_project_rules or get_project_context. The additional note about inspecting before saving changes reinforces its distinct purpose.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to inspect what's already in a project before saving changes.' This gives a clear context, but it doesn't name alternatives or provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios. Still, the context is strong enough to guide an agent.

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