get_project

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

Annotations already mark this read-only, but the description adds that it 'does not mutate GitLab data' and explains that missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, and rate limits are returned as errors. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint or openWorldHint annotations, but it could go further by describing the success response shape.

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 compact at four sentences, front-loading the core purpose and usage guidance. The final sentence contains boilerplate about 'group_id' and 'pagination fields' that does not apply to this single-parameter tool, a minor defect that prevents a 5.

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 simple get-by-ID tool, the description covers purpose, when to use, side effects, and error behavior. The irrelevant mention of pagination fields and group_id is a blemish, but the essential information is present. It is adequate without being exhaustive.

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 already documents project_id as 'Project ID or URL-encoded path' with 100% coverage. The description adds only that the 'numeric ID or complete URL-encoded path' should be provided, which slightly clarifies but essentially restates the schema. No new parameter semantics are added, so a baseline 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 opening sentence 'Get details of a specific project' clearly states the verb and resource. The next sentence distinguishes it from list/search tools, and the sibling list confirms get_project is the singular lookup among list/search peers.

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 states when to use this tool ('for a known resource or result') and points to alternatives ('choose the corresponding list or search tool when you need to discover multiple resources'). It also clarifies that it is read-only and how errors are surfaced, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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