Get Project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by specifying the returned content categories (ontology, files, status, graph info), which helps set expectations. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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?

Single sentence, 17 words, front-loaded with verb and object, no filler. Every phrase ('including ontology, files, status, graph info') 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 get-by-id tool with one parameter, good annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview. It names the key included components but doesn't detail the exact response structure, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%: `project_id` is described as 'The project ID (e.g. proj_xxxx)'. The description's phrase 'by its ID' adds no semantic value beyond the schema, so 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'specific MiroFish project by its ID', clearly differentiating from sibling `mirofish_list_projects` (which lists all) and `mirofish_delete_project` (deletes). It also lists included content (ontology, files, status, graph info), making the purpose 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 implies usage when you have a specific project ID and need its details. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context (by ID vs list) is clear. A small gap is lack of explicit 'use list_projects to enumerate' guidance.

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