git-asmt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the dispatcher behavior, the sub-steps (solution/tests, prove 100/100, Starter, org-hub registration, Canvas page via git_page), and the ordering. It does not mention auth, failure modes, or side-effect reversibility, but the orchestration details are substantive.

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 dense paragraph with no filler. Every clause adds value: purpose, child routing, language-agnostic nature, configuration hierarchy, and trigger phrase. The structure is front-loaded with the tool's role.

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?

Given zero parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description provides a solid high-level map of the tool's responsibilities and integration with child tools. It does not explain prerequisites like course validity or org-hub setup, but for a dispatcher with this sibling set the coverage is sufficient.

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 is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context by mentioning the natural-language '<CODE>' input, helping the agent understand that parameters are not structured schema fields but are derived from the user command. It does not define the format or constraints of <CODE>, but that is acceptable for a dispatcher with no formal parameters.

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 identifies this tool as a dispatcher/entry point for creating a GitHub coding assignment end-to-end, with an explicit 'Use when the user says...' trigger. It distinguishes itself from its children by naming git-asmt-repo and git-asmt-page and explaining the routing relationship.

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 gives a clear usage context: 'Use when the user says make/build/create assignment <CODE>'. It also explains the execution order (repo-first then page) and references the child tools, though it does not explicitly list exclusion cases or compare with all sibling alternatives.

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