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 still adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the default 30-day window, the 90-day maximum, and the fact that results come as totals plus hourly/daily buckets. It omits pagination or result-size limits, keeping it below 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the metric list, with the window default and cap following. The trailing internal identifier 'Depot: GithubActionsService/GetGithubActionsAnalytics' adds little for an agent selecting a tool, minor clutter that keeps it from a 5.

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 an 8-parameter, zero-required read tool with no output schema, the description does meaningful work: it enumerates the returned metrics and the bucket granularity, and states the default and maximum windows. It is nearly complete, missing only guidance on result limits or filtering semantics.

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 all eight parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the bucketing option ('hourly or daily buckets') and the date window default, adding marginal meaning beyond the structured fields; 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get time-bucketed GitHub Actions analytics') and enumerates the exact metrics returned (job counts, failure rate, elapsed/billable seconds, average duration), so the agent knows what it produces. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from analytics-adjacent siblings like depot_get_usage, so it stops short of a 5.

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 default window (last 30 days, max 90) tells the agent how the tool behaves if it omits parameters, which implies a typical usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing to alternatives such as depot_gha_list_jobs or depot_gha_search_logs, so usage is only implied.

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