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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns field names and single-select options, which is useful. It doesn't mention pagination or whether all fields are returned, but for a read-only list tool 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and ends with a purposeful connection to the sibling tool. No wasted words.

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?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that the output is meant to be consumed by github_set_project_field, which it does. Minor gap: no mention of whether the result includes all field types or just single-select ones, but the description already clarifies single-select options are included.

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 parameters are already documented. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but it does clarify the purpose of the output in relation to the setter tool. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 what github_set_project_field expects. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_list_project_items and github_set_project_field.

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 when to use this tool: before calling github_set_project_field, to discover valid field names/options. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the connection to the setter tool provides clear context.

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