get_project_fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds useful context about public access and user-owned project support, and references the same data source as list_project_items. However, it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only or describe return format/pagination, leaving gaps in the behavioral disclosure.

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 reasonably sized with a clear front-loaded purpose. The additional details about use case and limitation are valuable and each sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly tightened.

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 simple two-parameter getter with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents (field definitions, option colors, saved views), a use case, and limitations. It doesn't explain response structure or failure modes, but the current information is sufficient for most invocation scenarios.

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 input schema already fully describes both parameters (owner and projectNumber) with 100% coverage. The description adds an extra constraint (user-owned, public) but doesn't elaborate on parameter formats or semantics beyond the schema, so it meets but doesn't exceed the baseline for high schema 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a public GitHub Projects (v2) board's field definitions.' It also details what's included (single-select options, saved views) and a concrete use case (resolving option IDs), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_project_metadata.

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 provides clear usage context: it's useful for resolving option IDs from list_project_items, and it notes a limitation (user-owned projects only). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of explicit exclusions.

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