github_projects_get_for_user

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or what the response contains. The tool expects input parameters, but the description gives no hints about side effects or return values.

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 extremely concise (three words), but it sacrifices clarity and structure. It is too terse to be informative, lacking any context or explanation.

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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to use it, or how it differs from other project tools.

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 100% (both parameters have descriptions 'username' and 'project_number'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the role of project_number or its format.

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 'Get project for user' states the verb (get) and resource (project) and scope (for user), which is clear but lacks specificity. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_projects_get_for_org or github_projects_get_user_item, and it does not clarify what type of project (e.g., GitHub Projects).

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_projects_get_for_org or github_projects_get_user_item. The name implies user-scoped, but no explicit direction is given.

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