Get project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates that this is a read-style 'Get' and does not mention permissions, error/not-found behavior, or what the response contains. This is a thin disclosure for an operation with no annotation support.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the core operation and lookup method. Every word earns its place.

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 operation, this is minimally sufficient because the schema covers the parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not disclose return shape, failure behavior, or permission expectations, leaving some context to assumption.

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 input schema documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including the distinction between project key and numeric ID. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a single project'), and the lookup mechanism ('by key or ID'). The 'single' qualifier distinguishes it from list_projects and other project-related tools.

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 implies this tool is for fetching one known project by identifier, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus list_projects or other project sub-resource tools. There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives.

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