mcp-github-project-manager

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 states the action ('List all items') but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, how pagination works (implied by the 'limit' parameter but not explained), what the output format is, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy to parse. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 complexity (a list operation with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'items' encompass, how results are structured, or handle edge cases like empty projects. For a tool in a rich ecosystem like GitHub with many sibling tools, more context is needed to ensure proper 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'projectId' implicitly by referring to 'a GitHub project' but doesn't explain what format it expects (e.g., numeric ID, URL). It doesn't address the 'limit' parameter at all, leaving its purpose and usage unclear. The description adds minimal 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('items in a GitHub project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_project' or 'list_projects' by focusing on items within a project. However, it doesn't specify what types of items (e.g., issues, pull requests) are included, which prevents 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_issues' or 'get_iteration_items' that might overlap in functionality, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a valid project ID. This lack of contextual guidance leaves the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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