get_project_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'retrieves' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens if the project_id is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: a clear purpose statement and a parameter explanation. It's front-loaded with the main action, and the parameter note adds necessary context without redundancy. There's minimal waste, though the structure could be slightly more polished (e.g., bullet points).

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but doesn't address return values, error cases, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with incomplete context for reliable use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that project_id is 'The ID of the project to retrieve', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic type (integer). However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., numeric range or source) or address other potential parameters, resulting in a baseline score.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific project', which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from siblings like list_projects (which lists multiple projects) by focusing on a single project's details. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling distinction, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_projects or get_user_details. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a project ID) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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