basecamp_index_get_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns project details from an index, but does not state whether it is read-only, whether the index may be stale, whether it can fail if the project is not indexed, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal transparency for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the primary purpose and key output components, earning its place without unnecessary fluff. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter.

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?

While the description lists the return elements, it lacks necessary context for an agent to confidently select this tool among many similar siblings. There is no explanation of the 'index' concept, no usage scenarios, no relation to other index tools (e.g., 'basecamp_index_build'), and no output schema. The context is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 has one parameter, 'project_id', with a description 'Project ID', covering 100% of the schema. The description repeats 'project ID' but adds no extra semantic meaning, such as format, required state, or relation to the index. Since schema coverage is complete, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get project details') and resource ('from index'), and enumerates the contained elements ('project ID, card tables, columns'). It partially distinguishes from the sibling tool 'basecamp_get_project' by specifying the data source, though it does not explicitly explain the difference between the index and the API.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'basecamp_get_project' or other index-related tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about whether the index must be built first. The description only implies that this is an index-based lookup.

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