list_project_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation by stating 'list all items', but it does not explicitly disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The schema includes pagination parameters, but the description adds no additional context.

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 clear and efficient, with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose in a concise manner.

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 tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not mention the return format, pagination behavior, or any ordering. For a list operation, explaining what items are returned and how pagination works would be necessary for completeness.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the purpose without elaborating on parameters like projectId, first, or after.

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 clearly states the tool lists all items (issues, pull requests, draft issues) in a GitHub Project V2. The verb 'list' and resource 'items' are specific, and it implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_project_item (single item) or add_draft_issue (add operation).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_project_item or list_projects. The description does not provide context for when this tool is appropriate or when to choose other tools.

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