list_user_projects

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads the same project list from the user's profile page, and explains the limitation of the official APIs. This is useful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or output format.

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 composed of two concise sentences. The first states the primary purpose; the second adds essential context about the API limitation. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does, the source it reads from, and why it exists. A minor omission is the lack of an explicit note on the return format, but that is not critical for this use case.

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 already provides 100% coverage with the parameter 'username' described as 'GitHub username'. The description does not add additional semantics beyond that, but none are needed for such a simple parameter. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 states the action ('List') and the specific resource ('public GitHub Projects (v2) boards owned by a user account'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the user-level listing, which is the entry point to other project-related tools.

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 implicitly explains when to use this tool: when you need to list a user's projects without knowing a project number. It also provides helpful context about the lack of an official API, which justifies the tool's existence. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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