getProject

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves project details but does not mention authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if projectId does not exist), rate limits, or side effects. This is minimal transparency.

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, focused sentence that is concise and front-loaded. The bilingual addition increases length slightly but remains efficient. No extraneous information is included, earning a high score.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits details about return format, potential errors, and any prerequisites. Given the low complexity, it is functional but not complete.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the schema already provides a clear description of 'projectId'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for any missing schema details.

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 states the verb 'Retrieves' and the resource 'details of a specific TestRail project by ID'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like getProjects (plural) by specifying retrieval of a single project via its ID. The bilingual addition does not hinder clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getProjects, or any context about prerequisites or exclusions. It merely states the action without helping the agent decide between sibling tools.

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