Github Get Project Fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the contextual detail that the output feeds into github_set_project_field, which is useful. It does not mention errors, rate limits, or output format details, but given the annotations and simple read operation, this is acceptable.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise workflow instruction. It contains no fluff, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit when-to-use phrasing. Overall it's efficient and scannable.

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 description covers the core functionality and references a skill for conventions, which adds context. Since an output schema exists (as indicated by context signals), the return structure is already defined elsewhere. The description is sufficient for an agent to know when and why to invoke it, though it omits edge cases or error scenarios which are minor for a read-only list tool.

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% with both parameters (project_owner and project_number) clearly described. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool lists a project's fields and the options for single-select fields, and explicitly connects it to github_set_project_field's expected naming. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_project_items and set_project_field. The verb 'lists' and the resource 'project fields' are specific.

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 implies usage before github_set_project_field by noting it provides the names that tool expects. It also instructs the agent to call github_get_skill('project-boards') as a workflow step, giving explicit guidance on prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it's strong but not fully explicit.

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