Get Plan Board

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden and does so well for the most important trait: 'Read-only: this tool cannot create, move, or close board items' rules out writes explicitly. It also discloses the return shape (grouped by status, per-issue fields) and the true-totals behavior. It does not mention auth requirements or pagination beyond the 200-item limit, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the two modes immediately after identifying the resource, then closes with the safety constraint. Three sentences, each carrying distinct information; the field enumeration is long but directly useful for knowing what comes back.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain both return values and safety — it does both, including the per-issue fields and the true-total behavior of group headings. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra by tying project_number to a distinct output mode and confirming the status grouping (In Progress / Todo / Done) that the enum encodes. It adds mode-level meaning rather than merely restating parameter definitions.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (GitHub Projects boards in this workspace), and immediately distinguishes its two operating modes: bare listing of open boards with per-status item counts versus per-board issue listing. No sibling tool produces board data, so the agent can route here unambiguously.

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?

Gives clear context for both modes ('With no arguments...' / 'With project_number...') and states the intent behind each — survey the board, or drill into one board to 'pick up the right issue'. It lacks an explicit exclusion clause (e.g. when to prefer a sibling tool instead), but there is no real overlap with the listed siblings, so the implied guidance is sufficient.

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