get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates that this is a retrieval operation and specifies the returned data, implying read-only behavior. It does not explicitly state that nothing is modified, nor does it mention permissions, pagination, or handling of empty columns.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first states the purpose and the second adds concrete return-field detail, so both sentences earn their place.

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 read operation with no output schema, the description gives enough of the return shape to interpret results: column ids/titles and per-card issue id, number, and title. It omits edge cases like empty columns or project metadata, but the core information needed to call and use the tool is present.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for missing parameter explanations. It does not define owner, repo, or project_id beyond the schema's bare names, and it does not say how to obtain a project_id or what formats are expected.

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') with a clear resource ('a project board') and details what is included: columns and cards/issues. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling read_project, but the scope is clear.

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 implies this is the tool to use when you need a project board with its columns and cards. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like list_projects or read_project.

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