github_user_pinned

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

The description discloses that the tool returns pinned repositories and is empty if none, but lacks details on side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden; it is adequate but not rich.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that convey the essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the purpose and includes a behavioral note about empty results.

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 the tool's simplicity and absence of output schema, the description adequately explains the return (repositories) and edge case (empty). However, it could be more complete by hinting at the structure of returned repositories (e.g., array of repo objects).

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?

With 100% schema coverage and a single parameter ('username') already described in the schema, the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'GitHub username'. 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 lists a GitHub user's pinned repositories, with a specific verb ('List'), resource ('pinned repositories'), and context ('showcase signal'). It distinguishes from siblings like github_user_repos (which lists all repos) by focusing on pinned ones.

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 retrieving highlighted repos ('showcase signal') but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like github_user_repos or github_user. No exclusion criteria or context for when not to use it is provided.

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