StarProof

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; "check ... is up" implies a harmless read with no arguments, which is useful framing. However, it does not state what a success/failure response looks like, whether it hits rate limits or requires auth, so behavioral coverage is partial.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded and the no-argument note trailing. Nothing redundant or padded; every phrase earns its 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 no-parameter availability probe with no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It stops short of describing the returned status/health payload, which is the one detail an agent might still want.

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?

Zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description's "Takes no arguments" reinforces the empty schema rather than adding new meaning, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 ("Check the StarProof API is up") with an explicit scope note that no arguments are needed. It is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling starproof_score, which presumably scores something rather than testing availability.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is a pre-flight/availability probe, but the description never says when to call it (e.g., before other StarProof calls, on errors) or that starproof_score is the alternative for actual work. No exclusions or conditions are stated.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that a live GitHub API call is made, that the operation is an analysis (non-mutating), that it costs nothing and needs no key, and what shape the response takes. It omits failure behavior (private, deleted or rate-limited repos) which matters for an external-API call.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the signal list, then the return contract and cost note. No filler, and the parenthetical signal list is the most efficient way to convey the scope.

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 one-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, the description states the return shape (0-100 score, verdict enum-style values, evidence list) so the agent needn't guess. Missing edge-case behavior for invalid or inaccessible repos keeps it short of fully complete.

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% and the single 'repo' parameter already documents 'owner/name or a full github.com URL', so the description does not need to restate format. It adds only the general notion of the repo being 'pulled through the GitHub API' rather than any new constraint or syntax detail.

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?

A specific verb and resource (score a GitHub repository's authenticity) followed by a concrete list of the signals it inspects, so the agent knows exactly what analysis happens. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling starproof_health, which is never mentioned, so the agent has to infer the split from the names alone.

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 enumerated fingerprint checks (a caller wanting a fake-star verdict will reach for this), and 'Free, no key' tells the agent there is no setup friction. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to starproof_health as the alternative for whatever that tool covers.

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