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. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about GraphQL cursor-based pagination and the need to loop with `after`, which goes beyond what annotations and schema provide.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and then gives the essential pagination guidance, making every clause informative.

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 and annotations covering safety, the description adequately explains the tricky pagination contract. A small gap remains: `project_owner` and `project_number` are not semantically described, though their names and required status make their role inferable.

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?

The description clarifies the `after` parameter by explaining the cursor loop pattern. However, `project_owner` and `project_number` remain undocumented in both schema and description, so it only partially compensates for the 50% schema description coverage.

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 identifies the resource ('project board') and action ('Lists what is on a project board with each card's field values'). It differentiates from sibling tools by framing the use as reading a backlog by Status rather than fetching individual issues.

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 a concrete use case and explicit pagination instructions: 'pass next_cursor back as after until has_more comes back false.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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