get_project_fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by revealing that output includes single-select options and that these names align with set_project_field, but it does not describe output shape or any limitations. This is reasonable given the annotations.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the most important qualification: that the output is what set_project_field expects. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, fully documented parameters, and read-only annotations. The description provides the missing relational context with set_project_field. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be 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 description coverage is 100%, so both project_owner and project_number are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add significant parameter-level detail, but the schema carries that burden. This earns the baseline score of 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists a project's fields and the options for single-select fields. It also explicitly connects the output to what set_project_field expects, which clearly differentiates it from write-oriented sibling tools without needing to inspect schemas.

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 clearly implies when this tool is useful: before calling set_project_field, since it returns the exact field and option names that tool expects. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative read tools, but the reference to set_project_field provides strong contextual usage guidance.

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