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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is disclosed structurally. The description adds that it submits a Builder task (consistent with a write), but does not explain that results must be polled via the scraper_task_* siblings, nor what the task submission returns. The destructiveHint=true claim is not really clarified by the description either.

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 trigger clause is front-loaded, which helps selection, but the opening is a repetitive keyword dump ('Github仓库信息、GitHub 仓库信息、Github repository…'). The purpose ('复用一个工具提交…任务') is buried after a long trigger list, so structure is functional but not tight.

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 7-parameter scraper submission with 100% schema coverage and annotations that carry the safety profile, the description covers the essential purpose and mode selection, so an agent has what it needs to invoke it. The main omission is the downstream workflow (that the submitted task returns an ID and results are fetched via scraper_task_status/result), but no output schema exists to cover that either.

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 every parameter (url, repo_url, search_url, max_num, page_turning, file_name, spider_id) is already documented in the schema, including which spider mode each serves. The description echoes the three modes but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 that the tool submits a Github repository collection Builder task and names the three supported modes (by-repo-url, by-search-url, by-url), so the verb and resource are identifiable. It leans heavily on trigger keywords rather than crisp functional prose, but an agent still understands it is the GitHub-repo scraper entry point distinct from other site scrapers.

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?

It gives the condition that triggers the tool (user needs Github repository info combined with collect/scrape/fetch/extract verbs) and lists the three spider modes, which provides implied usage guidance. However, it never states when NOT to use it, offers no explicit alternative sibling, and gives no rule for choosing between the three spider_ids beyond naming them.

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