Get Project Details

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation (restated as 'Read-only', which earns no credit), it discloses non-obvious behavior: the three health.dataState values and what each means for reporting, the {status:'unavailable'} convention for failed section reads, and an explicit prompt-injection warning about test titles/error excerpts. These are exactly the traits an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 purpose and routing are front-loaded before the long content enumeration, and nearly every clause carries information. The drawback is that the core is one very dense run-on sentence, which makes it slower to parse than a short bulleted breakdown would be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value semantics, and it does: it lists every section, defines dataState states, and explains the unavailable status. An agent has enough to answer project-level questions and to report missing data correctly.

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 projectId and window are already documented, and the description's branch note ('narrows the flaky list and CI suggestions only') essentially restates the schema's branch description. No new syntax or format detail is added beyond what the schema provides, 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?

Opens with a concrete framing ('how is this project set up and doing') and then enumerates the exact contents: health summary, executions, integrations, branch→environment mapping, top-10 flaky/slow/failing tests, tag health, CI suggestions. It explicitly contrasts itself with get_testcase_details and list_testcase, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

States 'Use it for project-level questions' and names the two alternatives with their selecting conditions ('drill into one test with get_testcase_details or list more with list_testcase'). It also scopes the branch parameter ('narrows the flaky list and CI suggestions only'), which tells the agent when filtering actually applies.

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