github_projects_get_field_for_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Get', implying a read operation, but offers no details on permissions, side effects, or what happens if inputs are invalid. This is insufficient for safe agent decision-making.

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 sentence that is directly front-loaded. Every word is necessary and there is no extraneous information. It achieves maximum conciseness by efficiently conveying the core purpose.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and the tool is a getter, the description does not explain the return value or how to interpret results. It lacks context on how to find project_number or field_id, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, each parameter description is just the parameter name (e.g., 'username', 'project_number'), offering no additional meaning. The tool description does not clarify the parameters either, failing to add value 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 identifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'project field' with scope 'for user', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like github_projects_get_field_for_org. It is specific but does not define what a project field is, though the name and schema imply sufficient context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_fields_for_user or get_field_for_org). No prerequisites or constraints (e.g., user membership, project existence) are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for correct invocation.

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