GitHub Hot Board

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation behavior: hourly batch refreshes, generatedAt as the batch stamp, and fetch-once-per-hour guidance.

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 tight sentences front-loaded with the resource and return fields. Every sentence carries useful information, including the refresh/caching note.

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-only snapshot tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers refresh semantics and top-N behavior adequately. The main omission is explicit routing guidance among sibling tools, though the slug enum and list_boards likely cover discovery.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description clarifies that 'top-N' maps to the limit concept while listing returned fields. It does not add slug enum meaning, limit bounds/default, or language facet restrictions beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific action and resource: returns top-N rows of one leaderboard and enumerates the fields returned. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_board_movers or list_boards.

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?

Provides operational guidance about hourly batch refreshes and fetching once per hour. However, it does not state when to use get_board versus get_board_movers, list_boards, or search_library, and it gives no exclusions.

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

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

Read-only is already covered by annotations, but the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the data source (own hourly snapshots), the fixed 24h window, the 'genuinely moved' noise-filtering guarantee, and the sign convention for 'positive climb = went up'. It does not state ordering of the returned list, which would have completed the picture.

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 tight sentences that front-load the core definition and use the parenthetical to establish data provenance. No filler, though the second clause about the movers strip is more marketing than operational.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the 24h window and sign convention are covered. What is missing is anything about the board taxonomy (what 'rising' vs 'dark' vs 'overlooked' actually ranks) and the fact that limit caps the movers returned.

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 must carry the parameter burden and does not. The slug enum lists ten values whose meaning is opaque without domain knowledge ('dark', 'overlooked', 'controversial', 'milestone'), and 'limit' (default 10, max 20) is never mentioned at all.

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 a specific resource and scope: repositories that changed rank on a board within the last 24 hours, sourced from an hourly snapshot series. That distinguishes it in substance from get_board (full board snapshot) and get_repo_history (single repo over time), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use instruction, no guidance on choosing among the ten board slugs, and no explicit alternative named (get_board is the obvious one for a static listing). Usage is only inferable from the 'on-site movers strip' analogy.

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

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the data is a served snapshot (no live GitHub API), staleness is signalled via asOf stamps, and unknown repos return "not-in-library." It doesn't cover rate limits or caching, but the important data-provenance caveat is present.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core resource and returned fields front-loaded and the dataset-provenance caveat placed second where it qualifies the whole result.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description needn't restate return shapes; it still gives enough about field set, data source, freshness, and the failure case for correct selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented; the description still adds meaning by noting the description comes back keyed by locale codes across up to 16 UI languages, which clarifies the behavior of the lg enum beyond the schema's one-line note.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Library record for one repository") and enumerates the fields returned, which lets an agent distinguish it from list/search siblings like search_library. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with get_repo_history (current snapshot vs. history), so sibling differentiation is only partially achieved.

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?

Usage is implied by the required owner/name lookup and the note that results come from the local dataset rather than a live GitHub call. The not-in-library case is disclosed, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_repo_history or search_library.

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

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the data provenance (own snapshot series), the granularity (hourly), and the meaning of an empty response — real behavioral context an agent could not infer. It stops short of saying how much history is retained at the maximum window.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition and the key edge case. The "Our unique moat — this data exists on no other service" sentence is promotional rather than operational, though it does hint at data uniqueness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and a read-only tool needs little safety disclosure. Remaining gap is modest: the `days` bounds and board enum semantics are left entirely to the schema, which does not describe them.

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 coverage is only 33%: only `full` is documented as owner/name. The description compensates partially by tying "window" to the `days` parameter and confirming the board default, but it adds nothing about the 1–30 day bounds or what the board enum values signify.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: a time series of one repository on one board, returning hourly rank plus star points. It is clearly distinguishable from get_repo (current snapshot) and get_board, though it never names those siblings explicitly to reinforce the split.

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 "empty result means the repo was not tracked in the window" note gives useful framing for interpreting output, and the default board is stated. But there is no explicit guidance on when to reach for this versus get_repo or the board-level movers tools.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond the annotations: a fixed cardinality of 10 and the fact that both a human page URL and a JSON API endpoint are returned, which helps an agent know it can chain into the API. It stops short of noting ordering or pagination (likely moot at a fixed 10).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The cardinality and the URL/endpoint payload are the two facts an agent actually needs, and both appear immediately.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return structure, and it correctly adds only the high-level shape (10 boards, page URL, API endpoint). For a zero-parameter read-only list tool this is essentially complete; only an explicit 'use this first to discover board ids' pointer is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 resource and scope precisely — 'The 10 leaderboards on GitHub Hot Board' — which clearly distinguishes it from the singular sibling get_board. However, it describes the return payload rather than naming the listing action with an explicit verb, leaving the 'list' semantics to be inferred from the tool name.

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?

Usage is implied: enumerating the boards and their endpoints suggests this is the discovery entry point before calling get_board or get_board_movers, but the description never says so explicitly and names no alternatives or conditions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot: no live GitHub calls (results reflect a snapshot, not GitHub state), coverage limited to repos on a board, and deterministic ranking where exact owner/name wins. It does not discuss truncation or ordering beyond exact-match precedence, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what it searches and how matching works, followed by scope exclusions. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tool is a read-only search with only two parameters. The one real gap is that `limit`'s effect (pagination or truncation of results) is never described, but everything an agent needs to form a correct query 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 coverage is 50%: `q` is documented in the schema, while `limit` has bounds and a default but no description, and the description does not mention `limit` at all. The description does enrich `q` by explaining that an owner/name fragment beats a description keyword and that keyword matching spans 16 languages' descriptions, which is real added meaning over 'owner/name fragment or keyword'.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (repositories tracked by this site), and further specifies two matching modes with precedence: owner/name exact match wins, keyword searches descriptions across 16 languages. This is enough to tell it apart from get_repo (single fetch) and list_boards without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear when-not: 'Library-only: repos never listed on a board are not here' plus 'No live GitHub calls', which tells the agent this is a cached/curated index and that unlisted repos need a different route. It stops short of naming a sibling as the alternative (e.g. read the board and use get_repo), so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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