get_project

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds the useful behavioral detail that the returned vocabularies are authoritative, project-specific, and that callers must use the VALUE rather than the label elsewhere. It also explains isDefault semantics, which helps other tools behave correctly after this call.

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 somewhat verbose but every sentence contributes meaningful guidance. It is appropriately front-loaded with a clear summary, then details, usage warning, and return shape. The only minor downside is that it lists many field names inline, making the text denser than necessary.

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 1-parameter read-only configuration tool, the description is complete: it states the tool's purpose, when to use it, what the valid-looking fields mean, how defaults behave, and the full return structure. No additional details such as auth, side effects, or prerequisites are needed for this operation.

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 is only one required parameter (the project ID), and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema mostly says what is needed. The description focuses on the output rather than how to provide the project ID, so it adds limited parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get a project's configuration') and its full scope: metadata, system-field vocabularies, and custom-field definitions. It clearly differentiates this discovery tool from the many sibling get_* and list_* tools by focusing on valid settings rather than a single entity's contents.

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 explicitly says when to use it: before setting any status or priority value. It warns not to hardcode values and explains that these vocabularies are project-customizable, which prevents misuse. This gives an agent clear selection and invocation guidance.

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