get_project_details

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state that no changes are made. There is no mention of required permissions, rate limits, or potential side effects, leaving critical behavioral gaps.

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, concise sentence. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, failing to include essential usage details. Every word is used, but the sentence could be more informative without being long.

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 tool has 2 required parameters and an output schema (likely defining return fields), the description should still set context for what 'detailed information' includes. It does not mention the scope or any constraints (e.g., platform-specific data). The output schema may compensate for return value documentation, but the description remains incomplete for guiding effective invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not elaborate on the 'platform' or 'project_id' parameters—e.g., what platform values are valid or where to find the project ID. This leaves the agent without sufficient context to fill parameters correctly.

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 the resource ('detailed information about a specific project'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like list_projects (which lists projects) and get_issue_details (which focuses on issues), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 like list_projects or get_issue_details. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a project ID from list_projects) or context for when detailed information is needed.

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