github_proofer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only public GitHub data is inspected and that the operation is a claims-vs-commits cross-reference, but it omits practical traits like GitHub API rate limits, auth/token needs, or behavior when a handle has no public activity.

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. The core action (inspect public GitHub profile/repos) is front-loaded and the differentiating behavior (cross-reference resume claims with commits) follows immediately, so every sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description should carry more of the return-value burden; it only implies that evidence-backed verification results come back, without indicating what an agent receives (per-claim verdicts, matched commits, confidence). What it does convey about inputs and read-only public scope is otherwise adequate for a two-parameter tool.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents the required identifier and the optional technical_claims list. The phrase 'technical resume claims' loosely echoes the technical_claims parameter but adds no format, cardinality, or matching semantics beyond the schema. 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?

States two specific actions on a specific resource: inspecting a candidate's public GitHub profile/repos and cross-referencing resume claims against production code commits. The 'GitHub' scope naturally distinguishes it from the sibling huggingface_proofer, and the verification framing separates it from jd_analyzer, ats_readiness, and evidence_validator.

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 cross-referencing framing (use it when you need to verify a candidate's technical claims), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no direction toward huggingface_proofer or evidence_validator as alternatives for adjacent verification tasks.

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