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 conveys only that this is a read of one project; it says nothing about authentication requirements, behavior when the ID is invalid or inaccessible, or what the returned project object contains.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. 'Basecamp 2' is a meaning-bearing qualifier given the API version differences, so 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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it identifies the platform version and retrieval mode. It stops short of describing the response shape or failure behavior, which with no output schema and no annotations would add real value.

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?

There is a single required parameter documented at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds only that the ID refers to a Basecamp 2 project, which is context but not parameter-detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (project) and the 'single ... by ID' phrasing implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_projects. It does not name the sibling explicitly, but the singular scope is 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over list_projects, and no prerequisites or error conditions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the ID-based retrieval semantics.

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