get_project_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states unauthenticated access and that it applies only to public projects, which are key constraints. It does not mention error handling or response structure, but these are less critical for a read-only metadata fetch.

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 packs the access scope into the second sentence, making every word useful.

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 conveys what the tool returns (metadata fields), its scope (public, user/org owned), and auth requirement (unauthenticated), covering the essentials. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit list of metadata fields, though error behavior is not addressed.

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 schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (coverage 100%), so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The description only adds context about the return fields, not about the parameters themselves, fitting the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as metadata for a GitHub Projects v2 board. It enumerates the metadata fields (title, description, state, dates) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_project_fields (fields) and get_project_item (single item).

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 specifies that it works unauthenticated for public projects, which gives clear context on when it can be used. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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