todoist_get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a project but doesn't describe what information is returned (e.g., project name, color, tasks), error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), or any rate limits or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a read operation with no structured safety hints.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a specific project by its ID') with zero wasted words. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic action but lacks details on return values, error cases, or usage context. With no annotations and no output schema, the agent must rely on external knowledge or trial-and-error, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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%, with the single parameter 'projectId' fully documented in the schema as 'The ID of the project to retrieve'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., numeric vs. string) or where to find the ID. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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') and resource ('a specific project by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'todoist_get_projects' (plural) by specifying retrieval of a single project, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other read operations like 'todoist_get_task'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid project ID), contrast with 'todoist_get_projects' for listing all projects, or specify use cases like retrieving project details for updates. Without this context, the agent must 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.