Github List Project Items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond this: it discloses that the board is a GraphQL connection using cursor-based pagination and instructs to 'pass next_cursor back as after until has_more comes back false'. This is useful context not present in 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: it states the purpose first, then explains pagination, and finally points to a skill. Every sentence serves a purpose without fluff or repetition.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the essential usage context, including paging mechanics. It could mention prerequisite knowledge or edge cases, but it directs to a skill for workflow, which fills gaps. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a read-only listing 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 50%, with only `after` and `per_page` having descriptions. The description adds clarity for `after` by explaining its role in pagination, which goes slightly beyond the schema's description. However, it does not compensate for the missing descriptions of the required parameters `project_owner` and `project_number`, though these are self-explanatory given the tool's name and purpose.

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 ('Lists what is on a project board with each card's field values') and adds the purpose ('so a backlog can be read by Status rather than one issue at a time'). This makes the tool's role distinct from other list tools like github_list_milestones or github_list_releases, which target different resources.

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 clear context for use (reading backlog by status) and explains paging behavior. It also points to github_get_skill('project-boards') for workflow conventions, offering additional guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the purpose is specific enough to guide selection.

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