list_org_project_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'List fields' without mentioning authentication, pagination, rate limits, or response structure. While 'list' implies a read operation, it does not explicitly confirm safety or describe side effects, adding minimal value beyond the tool name.

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, front-loaded sentence with a useful docs link and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool, matching the conciseness of high-quality examples.

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 the lack of an output schema and only 50% parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what fields are returned, how pagination works, or how this tool fits into the project workflow. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's role.

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 input schema has 4 parameters with only 2 described (org, project_number). The description mentions no parameters and does not compensate for the missing descriptions of 'page' and 'per_page', leaving their purpose unclear. The phrase 'configured on a GitHub ProjectsV2 project' only hints at the project_number parameter.

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 ('List') and resource ('fields') with a clear scope ('configured on a GitHub ProjectsV2 project'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_org_project_items or list_org_projects, and the docs link provides additional reference.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It lacks context such as 'use to inspect field definitions before querying items' or any comparison to sibling tools.

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