get_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get information' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the returned information takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 gets straight to the point. The domain context marker '[Project Management]' is front-loaded, followed immediately by the core functionality. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant information.

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 read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned about projects, whether there are access restrictions, or how to handle errors. Given the complexity of project management systems and the lack of structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the return values and operational constraints.

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 100% description coverage, with both parameters clearly documented as 'Organization ID' and 'Project unique identifier'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 verb ('Get information') and resource ('Yunxiao project'), making the purpose evident. It includes a domain context marker '[Project Management]' which adds specificity. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_application' or 'get_work_item' that also retrieve information about different resources.

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. There are many sibling 'get_' tools (like 'get_application', 'get_work_item', 'search_projects'), but the description doesn't indicate when this specific project retrieval tool is appropriate versus those others. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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