mcp-github-project-manager

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states only the basic action ('List') without any information about permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or output format. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented for a read operation.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple-sounding tool, though this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for its two parameters, the description is incomplete. It omits essential context: parameter meanings, behavioral traits (like pagination or authentication), and how results are returned. For a list operation with parameters, this leaves too much undefined.

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%, meaning neither parameter ('state' or 'perPage') has any documentation in the schema. The description provides no information about these parameters—not their purpose, allowed values (e.g., 'open', 'closed', 'all' for state), or defaults. With two undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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') and resource ('pull requests in a GitHub repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pull_request' (singular) or 'list_pull_request_reviews', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.

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 'get_pull_request' (for single PR details) or 'list_pull_request_reviews', nor does it specify use cases like filtering, pagination needs, or repository context requirements. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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