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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not mention any side effects, read-only guarantees, or potential failures. The presence of many seemingly unrelated parameters further obscures the tool's actual behavior.

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 itself is concise, but the overall tool definition is bloated with 9 parameters, most of which have no relevance to the stated purpose. The structure is unnecessarily complex and not efficiently organized for the tool's actual function.

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?

The definition lacks essential context about why unrelated parameters are present or how they are handled. This incompleteness could lead an agent to incorrectly supply or interpret parameters, undermining the tool's usability.

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?

Although the schema covers all parameters with descriptions, most are clearly copied from other tools (e.g., 'city', 'feed', 'iana timezone') and are irrelevant to parsing a GitHub URL. The description does not clarify that only 'url' is used, making the parameter semantics misleading and confusing.

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 the tool's function: parsing owner and repo from a GitHub URL. It is specific and distinguishes this tool from other shape-related sibling tools like domain-shape or figma-url-shape.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that only the 'url' parameter is relevant or that other parameters are ignored, leaving ambiguity in usage.

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