portfolio_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what information is retrieved without disclosing behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. It mentions 'authenticated user's username' in the schema, but the description doesn't elaborate on authentication needs or other operational details.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key outputs. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, followed by specific details, with no wasted words or redundant information.

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 1 parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and outputs. However, as a read operation with no annotations, it lacks details on authentication, error handling, or return structure, which are important for contextual understanding despite the simple parameter set.

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 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the scope of the check (repository existence, elements count, sync status, configuration details), which provides context beyond the single 'username' parameter documented in the schema. With 0 parameters requiring additional semantics, this exceeds baseline.

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 action ('Check') and resource ('GitHub portfolio repository'), specifying what information is retrieved (existence, elements count, sync status, configuration details). It distinguishes from siblings like 'portfolio_config' (which likely manages configuration) and 'sync_portfolio' (which performs synchronization), but doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 checking portfolio status, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'portfolio_config' (for configuration details) or 'sync_portfolio' (for sync status). It provides basic context but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives.

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