timeweb_get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get detailed information' without explaining what information is returned, whether the operation is read-only (though 'Get' implies it), error handling, or any auth/rate-limit notes. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Get', and contains no extraneous information. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool and every word earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must compensate by explaining what 'detailed information' includes. It fails to specify return fields, the effect of the 'format' parameter, or behavior for invalid project IDs. For an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the result, the description is under-specified.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters: project_id (required integer) and format (optional enum). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the 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 uses a specific verb+resource combination: 'Get detailed information about a specific project.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like timeweb_list_projects (which lists all projects) and create/delete_project by indicating this is for fetching details of one known project.

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 phrase 'specific project' implies this tool is for fetching details of a single project by ID, contrasting with list_projects. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it vs other getter tools, no alternatives are named, and no exclusions are provided. The usage is only implied, not clearly articulated.

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