Perfil do GitHub

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool accesses public information and lists the returned fields, but it does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or confirmation that it is read-only. This is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the output fields efficiently. Every word contributes meaning, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple profile lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete by enumerating the returned data fields. It adds context that is not present in the schema, though it could mention behavior for nonexistent users or error conditions.

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?

The input schema already provides full documentation for the single 'username' parameter with a clear description and example. The tool description does not add additional parameter behavior or syntax beyond what the schema covers, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 searches public GitHub user or organization information, and enumerates the specific fields returned (name, bio, company, location, followers, public repos). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_top_repos and get_language_stats, which focus on repositories and language statistics.

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 implies usage for fetching profile data, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusion criteria or alternatives are provided, though the scoped description makes the use case fairly evident.

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