get_project_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must compensate. However, it merely states 'get details' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as read-only nature (implied), permissions needed, rate limits, or side effects. The description is too sparse.

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 extremely concise (a single phrase). While it is front-loaded, it lacks sufficient detail to be fully helpful. Every sentence should earn its place, but this is too brief to be informative.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally complete but fails to explain what kind of information is returned. Without an output schema, the agent would benefit from knowing the structure of the project details.

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% (one parameter described as '項目名稱' in the schema). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, it meets the baseline but offers no extra value.

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 tool's purpose: '獲取項目的詳細信息' (Get project details). It specifies a verb ('獲取') and a resource ('項目's details), and is distinct from sibling tools which target executions, jobs, nodes, etc.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no discussion of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it. The description is minimal and leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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