get_project_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool uses an 'unofficial, undocumented GitHub endpoint' and that it 'works today for public projects but is not a published API contract,' setting clear expectations about reliability. It also mentions the nodeId incompatibility and the ID-resolution behavior, adding significant transparency beyond the annotation baseline.

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?

Though long, every sentence contributes: purpose, differentiation, required IDs, optional parameter behavior, and reliability caveat. The structure front-loads the core action, then explains dependencies and trade-offs, ending with a crucial warning. No superfluous content.

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 description explains what the tool does, how it differs from siblings, ID requirements, and optional parameter effects, which is substantial without an output schema. However, it does not explicitly describe the shape of the returned data (e.g., whether it returns a flat object or nested fields), leaving a minor gap for a 'get' operation. Still, given the complexity and the tool's nature, it's nearly complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds important context: projectId must come from get_project_metadata's `id` field and not nodeId, itemId from list_project_items, and owner/projectNumber are only needed for resolving custom field/option names (omit to get raw IDs). This clarifies parameter relationships and usage, going beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly identifies the verb ('Get') and specific resource ('full field data for a single item in a public GitHub Projects (v2) board'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from list_project_items by noting it returns every field defined on the project instead of only default-view columns. The mention of custom fields like Priority/Story Points provides concrete examples.

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 states when to use this tool: when needing full field data including custom fields, and contrasts with list_project_items which only returns default-view columns. It also gives explicit instructions on required IDs (numeric, not nodeId) and optional parameters (owner/projectNumber) with clarifications on what happens if omitted. This effectively guides selection among the sibling tools.

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