GitHub MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether results are paginated, rate limits, or error conditions. 'List Projects V2' implies there's a version difference but doesn't explain what changed from V1 or why this version should be preferred.

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 extremely concise - just one sentence that states the core function. While efficient, it's arguably too brief given the tool's context and sibling relationships. Every word earns its place, but more context would be helpful. The structure is straightforward with no wasted verbiage.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a listing tool with multiple similar alternatives and no annotations, the description should provide more context about scope, version differences, and usage scenarios. The minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding when and why to use this specific tool versus other project listing options.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters (owner, owner_type, first). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't clarify format requirements for 'owner', explain the implications of different owner_type values, or provide context about the 'first' parameter's pagination behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool lists projects for an organization or user, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_org_projects' or 'list_repo_projects' - the 'V2' designation is unexplained and provides no meaningful differentiation. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what makes this listing operation unique.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple project listing tools available ('list_org_projects', 'list_repo_projects'), the description offers no context about scope differences, prerequisites, or appropriate use cases. The agent receives no help in selecting between similar listing operations.

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