setup_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 discloses key behavioral traits: it uses 'GitHub's secure device flow - no passwords needed!' which explains the authentication method and security aspect. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., if it modifies user settings or requires user interaction), rate limits, or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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 and well-structured: two sentences that efficiently cover purpose, method, and usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value—the first explains what the tool does and how, the second provides clear invocation triggers—with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 complexity (authentication setup with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, method, and when to use it. However, it doesn't detail what happens after setup (e.g., success indicators or next steps), which could be helpful for a tool with no output schema.

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, earning a baseline score of 4. It focuses on the tool's purpose and usage instead, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

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: 'Set up GitHub authentication to access all DollhouseMCP features.' It specifies the verb ('Set up'), resource ('GitHub authentication'), and benefit ('access all DollhouseMCP features'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_github_auth' or 'clear_github_auth', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: 'Use this when users say things like 'connect to GitHub', 'set up GitHub', 'I have a GitHub account now', or when they try to submit content without authentication.' This gives clear triggers for when to invoke the tool, including specific user phrases and scenarios, with no misleading information.

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