get_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's 'Read-only; takes no input' largely restates those structured fields; the one bit of added value is the 'resolved' framing, hinting the server computes/derives the project rather than reading it verbatim.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the resource and its returned fields front-loaded before the read-only affirmation.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value and does so completely: name, absolute root, git branch and mode. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret this tool is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description's 'takes no input' reinforces the empty schema, and no additional parameter meaning is needed.

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?

States a specific verb (Return) and resource (the resolved project this server is attached to), and enumerates the returned fields (name, root, git branch, mode). No sibling tool (all task/comment/kanban operations) overlaps with project resolution, so the agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Return the resolved project this server is attached to' makes clear this is the project-context lookup, and 'takes no input' confirms it is a simple retrieval. However, there is no explicit when-to-use framing or named alternative, so an agent is left to infer the call condition.

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