github_trending_developers

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

With no annotations provided, the description simply states the tool returns trending developers. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, if there are pagination limits, or any other behavioral traits. Minimal transparency beyond the core action.

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 efficient sentence with a clarifying parenthetical. It is concise and front-loaded, though extremely brief.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should elaborate on the returned data format or structure. It only vaguely states 'returns the developers,' which is insufficient for an agent to understand what fields or information will be provided.

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 describes both parameters (since and language) with appropriate descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.

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 lists trending GitHub developers and specifies it comes from GitHub's trending page. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like github_trending, though the name implies the distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_trending (which likely lists repositories). There is no mention of when not to use it or any context for selection.

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