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 states 'Get one project by ID' without revealing return format, error behavior, read-only nature, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool 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?

The description is a single, straightforward sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must compensate by explaining what the tool returns and its behavior, but it does not. It also omits mention of the optional 'fields' parameter, which controls the response fields. This leaves critical gaps for a complete understanding.

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 fully documents both parameters (projectId and fields) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Получить один проект по ID' (Get one project by ID) clearly states the action (get) and the resource (project by ID), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_projects' by specifying a single project. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for fetching a single project by ID, which provides clear context for when to use it. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the singluar scope implicitly contrasts with the plural 'get_projects' sibling. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided, but the basic use case is clear.

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