check_github_auth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what information is returned (connection status, username, available actions) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this is adequate but lacks depth.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and returned information, and another providing usage guidelines. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no words.

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 (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, though it could benefit from more detail on return format or error cases. For a status-check tool, this is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools, as no compensation is needed.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('check', 'shows') and resources ('GitHub authentication status', 'username', 'actions available'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'setup_github_auth' and 'clear_github_auth' by focusing on status checking rather than configuration or cleanup.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use when users ask 'am I connected to GitHub?', 'what's my GitHub status?', or similar questions.' This provides clear context and distinguishes it from authentication setup or clearance tools among siblings.

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