get_org_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get' with no mention of read-only nature, required permissions, error conditions, or response format. The documentation link is helpful but not integrated into the description.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. The documentation link is a useful addition without bloat. No wasted words.

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 GET operation, the description covers the tool's core function. However, without an output schema, it does not explain what the response contains, nor does it address permissions or edge cases. The sibling context does not clarify these gaps, so completeness is only average.

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%, with both 'org' and 'project_number' being self-descriptive. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but it aligns with the parameter names. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 'Get a GitHub ProjectsV2 project by number in an organization' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_org_projects (list) and get_org_project_item (item within a project) by specifying the project-level scope.

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 on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention that list_org_projects could be used to find project numbers or that get_org_project_item is for items within a project. The description is a bare definition, leaving usage context entirely to the agent.

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