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 project details and environments, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It's front-loaded with the main action and includes a useful detail ('including its environments') without unnecessary elaboration. There's zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' entail, how environments are included, error scenarios, or the response format. For a tool that retrieves project data, more context is needed to understand its full behavior and output, especially without structured fields to compensate.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'project_uuid' fully documented in the schema (including description, examples, pattern, and type). The description doesn't add any semantic information beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the scope of 'details' or 'environments'. With high schema coverage, 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get details of a specific project including its environments.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('project'), and mentions the inclusion of environments. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_projects' or 'get_team', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 sibling tools like 'list_projects' (for listing projects) or 'get_team' (for team details), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The input schema hints at getting the UUID from 'list_projects', but this isn't stated in the description itself.

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