get_github_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description does add useful context beyond annotations: it discloses that server allowlist and authenticated Project membership checks gate the call. However, it says nothing about what 'metadata' includes, failure modes, or pagination.

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?

A single lean sentence with the resource scoped first and the gating conditions attached. No filler, nothing redundant.

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 low-complexity two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the gating behavior but leaves the parameter formats and the returned payload entirely to the (silent) schema. Adequate but with clear gaps that the schema does not fill at 0% coverage.

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% for two required parameters (owner, number). The description mentions 'one GitHub Project v2' but never explains that owner is a login/org and number is the project number, nor their formats or constraints. The schema does the documenting and the description adds essentially nothing.

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 ('Get') and resource ('metadata for one GitHub Project v2'), with the scope limited to a single project. It is distinguishable from list_github_projects by 'one', but does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool.

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 implies a precondition-gated fetch (allowlist, authenticated membership) but offers no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. An agent cannot tell from this text why it would choose get_github_project over get_github_project_snapshot or list_github_projects.

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