agentbay_project_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Get') and outlines the scope of data returned (brief, stats, member list). Although it does not explicitly state that it is read-only and non-destructive, the verb 'Get' strongly implies safety. It could be slightly improved by confirming no side effects, but it is sufficient.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. There is no unnecessary information, and every word adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the description already listing what is included (brief, stats, member list), the description is reasonably complete. While lacking output schema, it gives enough context for the agent to understand the return structure. Could be more detailed, but adequate.

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 provides a description for the single parameter (`projectId` as 'Project ID or slug'). The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema already offers. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline score is 3.

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 clearly specifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('project details'), and provides specifics on what is included ('brief, stats, and member list'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like `agentbay_project_list` which likely returns a list, and `agentbay_project_files` which handles files.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the context of sibling tool names implies that this is for fetching a specific project's details, there is no direct guidance on when not to use it or when to choose another tool.

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