resolve_github_project_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it limits input to 'allowed' URLs and 'authorized' Projects and discloses that Project item pagination is followed when needed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element — verb, input type, target resource, authorization constraint, and pagination behavior — earns its place.

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 read-only resolution tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, authorization boundaries, and pagination behavior. It could be more complete by noting what happens when no matching item is found or when the URL is not allowed, but the core operational context is present.

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 carry the burden for all three required parameters. It refers generically to a URL and an authorized Project, but does not explain projectOwner versus projectNumber, nor clarify URL format expectations beyond the schema's uri type.

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: resolving a GitHub Issue or Pull Request URL to the matching item in a GitHub Project. It distinguishes the operation from generic URL resolution by specifying the Project item target, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 when the tool is useful — when you have an allowed Issue or PR URL and need the corresponding Project item. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not contrast itself with the closely named sibling resolve_github_issue_or_pr_url, leaving the selection context only partially specified.

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