check_github_auth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool does (checks authentication status, shows connection state, username, and available actions) and implies it's a read-only status check without side effects. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits or authentication requirements for the check itself.

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 perfectly concise with two well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance with concrete examples. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 zero-parameter status check tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of purpose and usage. However, it doesn't describe the return format or what specific 'available actions' might be shown, leaving some ambiguity about the output. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and usage. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the zero 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 states the tool's purpose: checking GitHub authentication status, showing connection state, username, and available actions. It uses specific verbs ('check', 'shows') and distinguishes itself from siblings like clear_github_auth and setup_github_auth by focusing on status inquiry rather than authentication management.

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 provides usage guidance with specific examples: 'Use when users ask 'am I connected to GitHub?', 'what's my GitHub status?', or similar questions.' This gives clear context for when to invoke this tool versus alternatives like setup_github_auth for authentication setup.

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