Github List Projects

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

With annotations already marking readOnly/openWorld and not destructive, the description adds useful behavioral context: GitHub resolves account type for both users and orgs, and pagination uses an opaque cursor with a has_more sentinel. No contradiction with 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 operational content is front-loaded in three readable sentences plus a skill pointer. The phrase 'the number each other board tool takes' is awkward and 'See #465' is cryptic, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 output schema and annotations cover return shape and safety, and the description fills in paging and account-resolution behavior. It is slightly incomplete on when to prefer this over item-level siblings, and the unresolved '#465' reference leaves one thread dangling.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic value by explaining that the listed board number is exactly what other board tools take and by giving the cursor-chaining rule for the 'after' parameter. This is a modest but real increment over the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the Projects (v2) boards a user or organisation owns.' It further clarifies that the result includes the same board number other board tools consume, which distinguishes it from item-level siblings like github_list_project_items. This is more than a restatement of the tool name.

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?

It gives concrete operational guidance: cursor paging ('pass next_cursor back as after until has_more comes back false') and a workflow pointer ('github_get_skill("project-boards")'). It does not explicitly say when to avoid this tool or name an alternative, so it stops short of a full 5.

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