list_project_fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List all fields' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the output takes, whether there are pagination limits, or what happens with large projects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral 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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'fields' means in the GitHub project context, what data structure is returned, or any limitations or requirements for using this tool. The description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective agent use.

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 description mentions 'in a GitHub project' which contextually relates to the 'projectId' parameter, but doesn't explain what format this ID should take or where to obtain it. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description provides minimal additional semantic value beyond what's implied by the tool name and context.

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 action ('List all fields') and resource ('in a GitHub project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get_project_field' or 'list_project_items', which would require explicit differentiation for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (like 'get_field_value', 'list_project_items', 'create_project_field'), there's no indication of when this specific listing operation is appropriate versus other field-related operations.

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