github-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.2
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct GitHub API endpoint with clear resource+action separation. Overlap is minimal, limited to legacy vs. modern endpoints (e.g., teams).
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent pattern: github_{category}_{action}_{specifics}, using snake_case. The naming is highly predictable and uniform across all 1112 tools.
Tool Count1/5
With 1112 tools, the server exposes every possible GitHub API endpoint. This overwhelms the agent and makes selection impractical. A curated subset would be far more appropriate.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers virtually every GitHub API operation across all domains (actions, issues, repos, etc.), with only minor gaps (e.g., some enterprise-only features).
Average 2.8/5 across 890 of 1112 tools scored. Lowest: 1.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on April 13, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and an extremely brief description, the tool's behavioral traits are entirely opaque. The agent is not told whether the revocation is permanent, what side effects occur (e.g., invalidating tokens, terminating sessions), or if any confirmation or rollback is possible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At six words, the description is extremely concise, but it sacrifices all informative value. While brevity is generally positive, here it results in under-specification: the description does not earn its place by providing any useful detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the vast number of sibling tools and the complexity of GitHub's credential management, this description is completely inadequate. It fails to specify which credentials are affected, how the list is provided, and what the response looks like. The absence of an output schema further compounds the incompleteness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has only one parameter 'body' described generically as 'Request body (JSON object)' with no further specification of its internal structure. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and the agent must guess the required fields for the credential list (e.g., array of IDs, credential types).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Revoke a list of credentials' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'github_credentials_revoke' without adding specificity about what kind of credentials (e.g., personal access tokens, OAuth tokens) are being revoked. It lacks the detail needed to distinguish this tool from other revoke-related tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when revoking a specific credential type or using a more targeted revoke endpoint. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
In the absence of annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'Get a label' with no mention of side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return format. It provides no useful behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At three words, the description is extremely short but under-specified. It sacrifices clarity for brevity and does not earn its place as a useful description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and minimal parameter info, the description should provide comprehensive context. It fails to explain what the tool returns, its limitations, or how it fits into workflows.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are minimal placeholders (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'name'). The tool's description adds no meaning beyond these, failing to explain the parameters' roles in the GitHub context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a label' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying that it retrieves a specific GitHub issue label from a repository. It fails to distinguish this tool from other 'get' tools among hundreds of siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, its prerequisites, or how it differs from alternative tools like getting an issue or a repository. The description offers no context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that it returns a single assignment object, requires authentication, or any side effects. The minimal text provides no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise but at the expense of useful information. While short, it lacks front-loaded context and every word does not earn its place due to vagueness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate with richer details. It fails to explain what the assignment object contains or how the ID relates to other resources, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema description coverage is 100%, the parameter description is simply 'assignment_id', which adds no meaning beyond the schema. The description does not clarify the format or expected values of the identifier.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get an assignment' states a verb and resource but is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It does not specify that the assignment is from GitHub Classroom nor differentiate it from sibling tools like 'github_classroom_get_assignment_grades' or 'github_classroom_get_a_classroom'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, scope (e.g., classroom, org), or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and a terse description, the tool's behavioral traits are entirely hidden. The description does not disclose that this operation likely replaces all existing contexts, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is under-specified; one short sentence provides no actionable information. Conciseness should not sacrifice clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and minimal parameter descriptions, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to understand what the tool does, when to use it, or what the expected outcome is.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. Parameter descriptions in the schema are minimal (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'branch', 'Request body (JSON object)'), and the description does not clarify the structure or purpose of the 'body' parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set status check contexts' is a tautology that restates the tool name without providing a specific verb-resource relationship. It does not clarify what 'status check contexts' are or how this action differs from adding or removing contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use 'set' versus the sibling tools 'add_status_check_contexts' or 'remove_status_check_contexts'. No context about prerequisites or alternatives is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, permission requirements, or effect on existing secrets. For a write operation, this is a critical gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks substance and important details, making it under-informative rather than optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a complex body parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is profoundly incomplete. It does not explain how to provide secret values, required fields in body, or response behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are minimal (just parameter names). The description adds no enrichment, e.g., what 'body' should contain or how secret value is encrypted. Schema coverage is 100% but descriptions are uninformative.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is a tautology: it restates the tool name 'Create or update an organization secret' without adding any new information. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_or_update_repo_secret' or 'create_or_update_environment_secret'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other secret creation tools (e.g., for repos, environments, or other namespaces). No context on prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states only 'Get feeds' with no indication of what data is returned, whether the operation is read-only, or any other behavioral characteristics. This is critically insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (two words), but this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification. It is not efficient communication because it fails to convey necessary information, making it closer to an omission than conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide sufficient context about the nature of the feeds being retrieved. It does not, leaving the agent with no useful information to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. According to the guidelines, the baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description adds no additional parameter information, maintaining the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get feeds' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any specificity. It fails to indicate what type of feeds (e.g., news, activity, user-specific) or how this tool differs from the many other 'get' operations in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but 'Get a thread' provides no information about read-only nature, authentication requirements, side effects, or return data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (three words), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness; it omits essential details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description should explain what a thread is and what the tool returns. It fails to provide any context, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for thread_id, but the description 'thread_id' adds no additional meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a thread' is vague; it does not specify what kind of thread (e.g., notification thread, discussion thread) and fails to differentiate from sibling tools like github_activity_get_thread_subscription.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context for usage decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It does not state side effects, prerequisites (e.g., import must be in progress), idempotency, or what happens upon cancellation. The description carries zero behavioral context beyond the action name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (three words) but this is under-specification, not conciseness. It lacks structure, does not front-load key information, and omits critical details that would fit in minimal space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and only a three-word description, the tool is severely incomplete. The agent lacks necessary context to invoke it correctly, such as the import's required state, potential errors, or return behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema describes parameters 'owner' and 'repo' with trivial descriptions ('owner', 'repo'), and the description adds no additional meaning. Though schema coverage is 100%, the description does not clarify their role in the context of cancelling an import.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Cancel an import' identifies the action and resource, but 'import' is vague without context. It is not a tautology, but it fails to distinguish from related migration tools like 'update_import' or 'delete_archive'. The purpose is adequate but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_migrations_update_import or github_migrations_start_import. The agent receives no guidance on context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when the branch lacks signature protection (e.g., error vs. empty response).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (three words) but lacks any structure or front-loading of key information. It is under-specified, missing details that a longer description would provide.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the return value, required permissions, or any side effects, leaving the agent without essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names in the schema, but the schema itself documents the parameters adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get commit signature protection' is essentially a tautology of the tool name itself. It restates the name without adding any clarity about what commit signature protection entails or how it differs from related tools like github_repos_get_branch_protection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context about prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It entirely fails to mention traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., what happens if the member is not found), or whether this is a read-only operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At only five words, the description is extremely concise, but conciseness here sacrifices informativeness. The single sentence fails to convey essential details, making it under-specification rather than efficient communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, annotations, and the presence of many sibling tools with overlapping functionality, the description is severely deficient. It does not explain the return value, legacy behavior nuances, or how to properly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema description coverage is 100%, the descriptions are mere parameter name repetitions ('team_id', 'username'). The tool description adds no additional context about the expected format, scope, or source of these values, offering minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get team member (Legacy)' is essentially a tautological restatement of the tool name, lacking specificity. It does not clarify what is retrieved (e.g., membership status, role, profile) or how it differs from sibling tools like get_membership_for_user_in_org or get_membership_for_user_legacy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No indications are provided about when to use this tool versus its non-legacy or alternative counterparts. The 'Legacy' label hints at deprecation, but no explanation or guidance is given for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior like read-only or mutability, but it says nothing. The agent cannot infer whether this tool modifies data or requires special permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise but at the cost of clarity and completeness. It is too brief to be helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides no information about return values, output format, or pagination, and there is no output schema. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get time stats by user' is vague. It does not specify what type of time stats (e.g., API response times, usage frequency) nor differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_time_stats_by_actor' or 'get_time_stats'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over its siblings, such as 'get_time_stats' or 'get_summary_stats_by_user'. The description lacks any context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 does not disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, error handling, response format). The implicit 'Get' is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (3 words), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks necessary detail to be useful, making it ineffective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (a get operation), the description omits important context: what type of ref is retrieved, what the output contains, and possible errors. No output schema exists to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema descriptions ('owner', 'repo', 'ref') are tautological, adding no meaning beyond the parameter names. The tool description also provides no parameter semantics, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a reference' is vague. It does not specify that this tool retrieves a single Git reference (e.g., branch or tag) from a repository, nor does it distinguish it from sibling tools like github_git_list_matching_refs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_git_list_matching_refs, github_git_create_ref, etc. The description lacks context for choosing this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description omits any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (two words), but it sacrifices necessary context. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description fails to provide context about return values, permissions, or usage scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, but the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List assignees' is vague; it doesn't specify whether it lists assignees for a repo, issue, or another context. The name suggests issues, but the description fails to clarify the resource scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like github_issues_add_assignees or github_issues_check_user_can_be_assigned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get Octocat' with no mention of side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or data returned. This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two words) but at the expense of necessary context. It omits essential information about what Octocat is and what the tool does, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even for a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain the nature of Octocat, the return format, or the effect of the optional parameter, leaving the agent without enough context to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides a description for the parameter 's' ('The words to show in Octocat's speech bubble'), covering 100% of parameters. The tool description adds no additional context beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Octocat' is too vague. It names the resource but fails to explain what Octocat is (ASCII art, image) or what the tool returns. Sibling tools like 'github_meta_get_zen' also have minimal descriptions, making differentiation unclear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_meta_get' or 'github_meta_get_zen'. The description does not mention any context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, filtering, rate limits, or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (2 words) but sacrifices clarity; front-loading fails as the purpose is unclear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate; it omits return format, pagination details, and filter options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but parameter descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'owner'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List attestations' is vague; it does not specify the scope (e.g., repository attestations) or differentiate from sibling tools like github_orgs_list_attestations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; there are multiple list attestation sibling tools (orgs, users) but no mention of context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Set user access restrictions' without explaining whether it replaces or merges existing restrictions, what permissions are required, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence but is under-specified. Conciseness should not sacrifice informativeness; here it provides no additional context beyond the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of sibling tools and the complexity of setting branch restrictions, the description is severely incomplete. It should explain that it replaces all user access restrictions on a branch and describe the expected body format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but parameter descriptions are minimal (just parameter names). Description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it doesn't improve understanding of the body structure or required fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Set user access restrictions' is vague and essentially restates the tool name. It doesn't specify the resource (branch) or clarify that it sets restrictions on a protected branch, leaving ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (add, remove, get user access restrictions). The agent has no way to distinguish the intended use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, rate limits, or what happens if the user does not exist. The description is silent on all behavioral aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two words is not conciseness but under-specification. The description is too short to convey necessary information, missing context about scope, pagination, and filtering.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and only a two-word description, the tool is severely underdocumented. For a listing tool with 6 parameters (including pagination cursors), the description should explain result structure, pagination behavior, and filter options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions. It does not explain parameter relationships or typical usage patterns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List attestations' but does not specify whose attestations (user vs org vs repo) or the scope. The tool name suggests user-specific attestations with required 'username', but the description lacks this detail. It does not distinguish from siblings like github_orgs_list_attestations or github_repos_list_attestations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no instructions on prerequisites, pagination behavior, or differentiation from similar list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only says 'Enable a workflow'. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it mutates state, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. The description is minimally transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single-sentence description is concise but overly brief, lacking structure. It does not front-load key information like required workflow state or return value. The conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. An agent cannot determine the effect of enabling a workflow, what state it must be in, or what happens after invocation. The context is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 3 required parameters with only labels as descriptions (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'workflow_id'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain how to obtain workflow_id or any parameter constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is a tautology: 'Enable a workflow' restates the tool name without specifying what enabling entails (e.g., re-enabling a disabled workflow). It does not distinguish from sibling tools like disable_workflow or approve_workflow_run.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it doesn't indicate it applies only to disabled workflows or any prerequisites like permissions. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description omits behavioral traits like read-only/write, side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The tool's behavior is completely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single phrase 'Get subject stats', which is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks necessary detail and does not earn its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the meaning of 'subject', the nature of the stats, or how to interpret results, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and many parameter descriptions are detailed (e.g., ISO 8601 format, pagination links, sort options). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get subject stats' is vague. It names a verb and resource but 'subject' is undefined, leaving the tool's exact purpose unclear, especially compared to sibling tools like get_summary_stats or get_route_stats_by_actor.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, such as other stats tools in the same server, nor does it mention prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Get' which implies read-only but does not confirm safety, side effects, authentication needs, or response format. The description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure but fails to add any meaningful detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, but it lacks essential information. Conciseness should not come at the cost of completeness; the description is under-specified and does not earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large number of sibling tools and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the returned metrics, how to interpret results, or any conditions for use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes the parameter 'enterprise' with a trivial description 'enterprise'. The description does not add any context about what this parameter represents or how to use it, providing no additional value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Copilot users usage metrics' clearly indicates a read operation for Copilot user metrics, but it does not specify whether this is for an enterprise, organization, or individual users. Given the sibling tools like 'github_copilot_copilot_organization_users_usage_metrics' and 'github_copilot_copilot_enterprise_usage_metrics', the description fails to differentiate the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. The description does not mention any alternatives or constraints, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description consists solely of 'Unlock a user repository'. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required authentication, side effects, or what the unlock operation entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is brief (one sentence), it is under-specified and lacks necessary detail. Conciseness should be balanced with completeness; here it sacrifices essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of GitHub migrations and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what unlocking a user repository means in the migration context, nor does it cover any additional behavioral or usage details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, but the descriptions are just the parameter names ('migration_id', 'repo_name') without additional context. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain how these parameters relate to the unlock operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Unlock a user repository' which is a clear verb-resource pair. However, it does not specify the context of migrations, making it insufficient to distinguish from other unlock-related tools like github_migrations_unlock_repo_for_org. The purpose is understood but lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when unlocking is appropriate, or any conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only implies a mutation ('update') without clarifying side effects, idempotency, exact changes made, or required permissions. The agent lacks critical safety information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only three words, which is inadequate. This is not conciseness but underspecification; it lacks any structure or informative content, failing to justify its existence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide substantial context about the update operation, but it provides none. The agent cannot determine what the tool does, how to use it correctly, or what the outcome will be.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the schema field names. The 'body' parameter is described as 'Request body (JSON object)', but the description fails to explain what properties the body should contain, leaving a significant gap for a tool that likely requires specific fields to update an import.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update an import' is vague and essentially restates the tool name. It does not specify what kind of import or what aspects can be updated, failing to differentiate from sibling tools like github_migrations_cancel_import or github_migrations_get_import_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where updating an import is appropriate, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 fails to disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, error handling, rate limits, or effects of duplicate webhooks).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence, which is concise, but lacks crucial information. It is too minimal to be considered efficient; it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and a complex body parameter, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the webhook configuration, events, or expected response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but parameter descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'body' is described as 'Request body (JSON object)' without specifying required fields or structure). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create a repository webhook', which is clear but does not differentiate from sibling tools like org webhooks or update webhooks. It lacks specificity about what a webhook does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_orgs_create_webhook, github_repos_update_webhook). The description does not mention prerequisites or common use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided; the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose what happens when restrictions are removed (e.g., all restrictions removed? requires admin permissions?), leaving the agent uninformed about behavioral consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (4 words) and lacks structure. While concise, it is too sparse to be useful, omitting essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 required params, no output schema), the description should explain the concept of team access restrictions and their branch-level context. It provides none, resulting in severe incompleteness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 3 parameters with trivial descriptions ('owner', 'repo', 'branch'). The description adds no additional meaning about their roles or constraints, despite 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove team access restrictions' states a verb and resource but is vague. It does not specify that this applies to branch-level restrictions, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like remove_app_access_restrictions or remove_user_access_restrictions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_team_access_restrictions or get_team_access_restrictions. No context about prerequisites or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or rate limits. It provides none, leaving the agent uninformed about what 'list' entails beyond a generic name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a mere two words, which is insufficient to convey necessary context. It is under-specified rather than concise, failing to front-load critical details like scope or usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is severely incomplete. It lacks information about what tasks are listed (global vs scoped), authentication needs, default behavior (e.g., all tasks vs paginated), and how it differs from sibling tools. With a rich set of parameters (7), more guidance is essential.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List tasks' is vague and does not specify what tasks are being listed (e.g., global, org, or user tasks). It fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'github_agent_tasks_list_tasks_for_repo', which explicitly scopes to a repository.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_agent_tasks_list_tasks_for_repo' or 'github_agent_tasks_get_task_by_id'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits, such as read-only nature, data sensitivity, or side effects. It simply states the action without elaboration.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but lacks substance; it does not earn its place because it provides no useful information beyond the tool's name. It is underspecified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and no annotations; the description fails to explain what the summary stats contain, the return format, or any behavioral context. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions in the schema are minimal (e.g., 'org', 'actor_type') and the tool description adds no additional meaning. The baseline of 3 is reduced because the description fails to enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get summary stats by actor' is vague, merely restating the tool name without specifying what type of stats, the context (API insights), or distinguishing it from similar siblings like 'get_summary_stats_by_user'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other API insight stats tools. The description lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or effects. The agent has no insight into side effects or safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but at the cost of essential information. It is under-specified and does not earn its presence; conciseness without completeness is not effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and a minimal description, the tool is poorly documented. The agent cannot understand what the tool returns or how it fits with similar siblings. More context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter described in the input schema (e.g., min_timestamp format, org required). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get time stats' is vague and does not specify the resource (e.g., for an organization) or the context. Among siblings like 'get_time_stats_by_actor' and 'get_time_stats_by_user', it lacks distinction and fails to convey what 'time stats' refers to.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus its by_actor or by_user variants. No prerequisites, exclusions, or usage context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination behavior, or rate limits. Two words are insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise but under-specified. Does not earn its brevity; lacks essential context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing output schema and annotations. Description does not explain return values or any additional context needed for a complete tool understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema covers both parameters (per_page, page) with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds no additional meaning, but baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'List plans' is tautological, restating the tool name without specifying what kind of plans (e.g., GitHub Marketplace plans). It does not distinguish from sibling 'github_apps_list_plans_stubbed'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description only states a read operation without disclosing any behavioral traits such as idempotency, authentication requirements, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise but missing essential context, failing to justify its brevity with requisite clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is wholly inadequate, providing no information on return value, tag types, or how to obtain the tag_sha.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names; schema coverage is 100% but descriptions are minimal (just parameter names), and the tool description omits parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a tag' is a tautology, restating the tool's name without specifying what a tag is or distinguishing it from sibling git tools like get_commit or get_tree.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus other git retrieval tools, nor any prerequisites or alternative scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided and description only says 'update', implying mutation. No disclosure of what fields are updated, force-push behavior, error conditions, or side effects beyond the minimal verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, but it is overly terse and lacks structure. It could be expanded without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain the body parameter, return value, or how the reference update works.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but with minimal descriptions ('owner', 'repo', 'ref', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The tool description adds no extra meaning to parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a reference' is a tautology that restates the tool's name without adding specificity. It differentiates from siblings (create/delete/get) but fails to clarify what type of reference (branch, tag) or scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_ref or delete_ref. Missing context such as prerequisites (push access) or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior like read-only status, required permissions, or error scenarios. It does not, leaving the agent blind to important traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence), but it is largely redundant with the tool name and lacks substantive information. While not verbose, it does not earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and minimal schema descriptions, this tool description provides insufficient context. It fails to explain what a webhook is, what data is returned, or any prerequisites, making it inadequate for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Though schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are just 'org' and 'hook_id'. The tool description adds no extra meaning, such as clarifying that org is the organization name or that hook_id is the numeric identifier.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get an organization webhook' is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'github_orgs_get_webhook'. It does not clarify that it retrieves a single webhook by ID or differentiate from sibling tools like list_webhooks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_webhooks, create_webhook, or get_webhook_config. The description offers no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Set' implies a write operation, but no details on mutability, side effects, or required authentication are given. The body parameter is undefined, obscuring the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At 4 words, the description is extremely concise but at the expense of informativeness. It is under-specified for a tool with complex input (nested body object) and no output schema, failing to earn its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, a vague description, and a complex input schema (body object), the description is completely inadequate. The agent cannot infer the tool's purpose, effect, or proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but each parameter's description is trivial (e.g., 'org' for org). The description adds no semantics beyond the schema; the body parameter lacks structure. The tool description does not compensate for the missing meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Set cluster deployment records' is vague and tautological, restating the tool name without clarifying what a 'cluster deployment record' is or how it differs from sibling tools like create_artifact_deployment_record. It lacks specificity and differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_artifact_deployment_record). No prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description discloses no behavioral traits such as authentication needs, side effects (e.g., whether removed reviewers are notified), idempotency, or rate limits. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it sacrifices essential information for brevity, making it less useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without annotations or output schema, the description fails to explain prerequisites (e.g., pull request must exist), error cases, return values, or behavior when no reviewers are specified. The mismatch between described action and schema parameters further reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, each parameter has only its name as description (e.g., 'owner'), offering no meaningful context. Moreover, the description implies a reviewer parameter that is absent from the schema, causing confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Remove requested reviewers from a pull request', which is clear in verb and object, but lacks details on which reviewers are removed. More critically, the input schema omits any parameter to specify reviewers, creating a mismatch that could mislead an agent into expecting a reviewer selection capability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_pulls_request_reviewers or github_pulls_list_requested_reviewers. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, or side effects. The description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations, leaving the agent uninformed about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (four words) but this brevity results in under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks necessary details, making it insufficient for the agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of output schema, annotations, and meaningful parameter descriptions, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, what permissions are needed, or how it differs from related tools, leaving the agent with no essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While the input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for 'owner', 'repo', and 'branch', those descriptions are mere repetitions of the parameter names and offer no additional meaning. The tool description does not elaborate on parameter semantics, so the agent gains no extra understanding beyond the schema's minimal context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get admin branch protection' is essentially a tautology of the tool name, providing no additional context about what 'admin branch protection' specifically refers to or what the tool returns. It fails to differentiate from the sibling 'github_repos_get_branch_protection', leaving ambiguity about the distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_branch_protection' or 'set_admin_branch_protection'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Add', implying a mutation, but does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, reversible, or requires any authentication. Critical details like potential side effects or constraints are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence (7 words), which is concise. However, it is too brief and omits important information. It is not verbose, but could be improved by adding more structure without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 1 complex parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain how to structure the request body, what the response looks like, or error conditions. The agent cannot invoke this tool correctly based solely on the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'body' with minimal description 'Request body (JSON object)'. The tool description adds no additional meaning about what fields the body should contain (e.g., account URL, platform type). While schema coverage is 100%, the description fails to compensate for the lack of detail in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Add social accounts for the authenticated user' which clearly indicates the action (add) and resource (social accounts). However, it does not specify what constitutes a social account (e.g., platform URL or account name), making it somewhat vague. It is distinguishable from siblings like delete_social_account by the verb, but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_email, other user management tools). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as authentication status or required permissions. The description gives no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It simply states 'Re-run a workflow' without explaining consequences (e.g., whether it creates a new run attempt, affects logs, requires permissions, or has rate limits). The agent has zero insight into behavior beyond the action verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single-sentence description is concise but overly minimal. It front-loads the action but omits critical details. Each word should add value; here, the description is too sparse to be useful, sacrificing completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description must compensate. It does not explain the return value, side effects, or the structure of the 'body' parameter. The tool is part of a large set of sibling actions, and the lack of context makes it difficult for an AI agent to use correctly without additional knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, but descriptions are just parameter names ('owner', 'repo', 'run_id', 'body'). The description adds no additional meaning. The 'body' parameter is described as 'Request body (JSON object)' but lacks specification of expected fields. Without elaboration, the agent must infer from context, risking incorrect usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Re-run a workflow' identifies the action (re-run) and resource (workflow). However, it fails to differentiate from sibling tools like 're_run_job_for_workflow_run' or 're_run_workflow_failed_jobs', which also involve re-running. The description does not specify the scope of the re-run (e.g., all jobs or just failed jobs), leading to potential ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., workflow run status) or conditions under which the tool should not be used. The agent receives no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Update a label'. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. The description fails to convey essential behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (three words), but it is under-specified to the point of being insufficient. Conciseness should not sacrifice informativeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should compensate by explaining return values, side effects, or prerequisites. It provides none, leaving the agent with inadequate information to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 4 parameters with descriptions that are just their names (e.g., 'owner', 'repo'). The description adds no additional meaning or guidance on how to use the parameters, leaving the agent to rely solely on the sparse schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a label' states the action and resource, but it's essentially a tautology of the tool name 'update_label'. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_label' or 'delete_label', and lacks context on what kind of label (issue label) is being updated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or situational triggers for updating a label.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It fails to disclose any side effects, required permissions, or what changes occur when disabling immutable releases. The agent cannot assess the impact of calling this tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While very short, the description is not appropriately concise because it omits critical information. A good concise description would still convey the tool's purpose and effect; this one just duplicates the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and the simplicity of parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'immutable releases' are, the scope (repository-wide?), or the result of the action. The agent cannot make an informed decision.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description for both 'owner' and 'repo' simply repeats the parameter name (e.g., 'owner' -> 'owner'). The tool description adds no additional context. Since the schema already provides minimal info, the description does not enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Disable immutable releases' merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It does not clarify that this applies to a repository, nor does it explain what 'immutable releases' are. It is essentially a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'github_repos_enable_immutable_releases' or 'github_repos_check_immutable_releases'. No prerequisites or context are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects (e.g., branch deletion, conflict handling), or whether a merge commit is created. With no annotations to supplement, the agent is left uninformed about the tool's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence) but lacks structure or detail. While brevity is valued, it fails to convey essential information, making it average in usefulness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of branch merging and the absence of annotations or output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover prerequisites, error handling, or return values, leaving a significant gap in understanding for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage but only provides minimal descriptions ('owner', 'repo', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The 'body' parameter is a loosely typed JSON object with no specification of its required fields (e.g., base, head). The description adds no additional meaning, leaving agents to guess the body structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Merge a branch' is extremely brief and fails to specify which branch (source/target) or the context (e.g., merging into the default branch). It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'github_pulls_merge' or 'github_repos_merge_upstream', leading to ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as merging via pull requests or upstream merges. The description lacks any context or prerequisites, leaving an AI agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Create a task' without mentioning side effects, required permissions, or what the body object entails. Lacks essential behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Under-specified; a single sentence is too minimal for a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations. Fails to provide necessary context while being short.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 params, nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what a task is, what the body should contain, or what the response will be.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% but descriptions are minimal (just parameter names). Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The body parameter is described as 'Request body (JSON object)', which is slightly helpful but still vague.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Create a task' is a verb+resource but very generic, merely restating the tool name 'create_task'. It does not specify what kind of task (e.g., GitHub agent task) or context like repository. Barely above tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_tasks or get_task. No prerequisites, such as requiring owner and repo, are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description merely states 'Reset a token' without revealing behavioral traits like token invalidation, generation, or required authentication.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise but under-specified; fails to convey necessary details, making it ineffective despite brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is woefully incomplete; it omits critical context about the token type, reset behavior, and parameter usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; description adds no extra meaning to the parameters beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Reset a token' indicates a specific verb and resource, but lacks context on which token (GitHub App token) and does not distinguish from sibling tools like github_apps_delete_token.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool or alternatives; the description provides no context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral details such as permissions required, side effects, or idempotency. The description simply states 'Add', which implies mutation but offers no further transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise. However, it is under-informative; brevity comes at the expense of clarity. A slightly longer description could provide needed context without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a mutation with three required parameters and no output schema. The description fails to explain what happens after adding (e.g., success response, errors, or effects on existing assignments). This leaves the agent without crucial context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage but parameter descriptions are tautological (e.g., 'enterprise' described as 'enterprise'). The main description does not add any meaning beyond the parameter names. With no additional context, an agent cannot infer the correct values or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add an organization assignment' provides a verb and resource, indicating the action is adding. However, it doesn't clarify what 'organization assignment' entails or differentiate from sibling tools like 'bulk_add' or 'get_assignment'. The purpose is clear at a basic level but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like bulk_add or delete. Sibling tools exist but no context is given, making it difficult for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'Create a tree' - a write operation - but omits side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or return value. This is insufficient for safe selection and invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (3 words), but conciseness is not helpful when it omits critical information. It lacks structure or additional sentences that would improve usefulness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of creating a Git tree (requires repository, possibly base tree, and entries), the description is severely incomplete. There is no mention of the body's required structure, the response format, or any links to related operations. The tool cannot be used correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage but each parameter's description is just its name (e.g., 'owner' for owner). The 'body' parameter is described as 'Request body (JSON object)' with no details on required fields like tree entries or base_tree. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a tree' clearly indicates the action (create) and resource (tree), but it does not explain what a Git tree object represents or how it differs from other git create tools like create_blob or create_commit. It is minimally clear but lacks context to distinguish from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. The agent receives no hints about required base trees or appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, read-only nature, or response format. The description carries the full burden but fails to communicate any behavior beyond the action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise, but under-specified. It sacrifices clarity for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and no description of return values. The tool has three required parameters, but no guidance on input formatting or what the output will contain. Incomplete for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are tautological ('owner', 'repo', 'ref'), adding no meaning. The description does not explain what each parameter represents or any constraints (e.g., ref pattern format).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List matching references' clarifies that the tool lists Git references matching a pattern, but it doesn't specify what constitutes a reference (e.g., branches, tags). This is somewhat redundant with the tool name and lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_git_get_ref or github_git_create_ref. No mention of prerequisites or context (e.g., repo availability).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or potential errors. Without annotations, the agent must infer behavior from the verb 'Get', which is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (3 words), but this brevity comes at the cost of essential details. It is front-loaded but not adequately informative. A more balanced description would include the parameter's role and context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context about the tool's function, return value, or parameter constraints. The agent cannot fully understand how to use this tool correctly from the description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds no additional meaning to the 'license' parameter beyond the schema's own description. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter, but the description misses an opportunity to clarify expected format (e.g., SPDX key).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a license' is vague and does not specify what kind of license or the scope. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like github_licenses_get_all_commonly_used and github_licenses_get_for_repo, which have clearer purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about selecting by license key, and there is no mention of when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description is too short to disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions required, or reversibility. The agent cannot understand the impact of using this tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at four words, but this comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. Under-specification reduces its usefulness, so it does not earn the upper range for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and the complexity of migration-related tools, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain what the LFS preference is, what the body should contain, or what the response will be.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with basic descriptions for owner, repo, and body. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The body parameter is described generically as 'Request body (JSON object)', offering no specific guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'Git LFS preference', but does not clarify that this is for a migration import context, making it somewhat vague. The tool name includes 'migrations', which helps, but the description alone is ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_migrations_start_import or github_migrations_update_import. The description lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks behavioral details. It does not specify side effects (e.g., whether the package becomes visible again), authentication requirements, or rate limits. Without annotations, the description should compensate but does not.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficient but severely lacking in content. It front-loads the purpose but fails to provide necessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the restore operation's effects, required conditions, or return value, leaving the AI agent with minimal context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter descriptions in the schema are tautological (e.g., 'package_type' for package_type). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining valid package types (e.g., npm, container) or the role of the optional token parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Restore a package for the authenticated user' merely restates the tool name. It does not clarify what 'restore' means (e.g., undelete a previously deleted package) or distinguish it from similar tools like restore_package_for_org or restore_package_for_user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., restoring for org or user). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring the package to have been previously deleted or requiring specific permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It fails to mention permissions, idempotency, side effects, or error conditions. The agent has no insight beyond the bare action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but at the expense of clarity. It is not front-loaded with critical details; it lacks context that would make it useful. Brevity is not effective here.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide comprehensive guidance. It does not explain return values, required permissions, or example usage. The agent is left with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no additional meaning beyond the input schema. Schema coverage is 100% with basic descriptions ('username', 'project_number', 'Request body (JSON object)'), but the description does not clarify what the 'body' should contain (e.g., field type, options).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add field to user owned project' clearly states the action (add) and resource (field to user owned project). It distinguishes from siblings like add_item or add_field_for_org, though 'field' is slightly ambiguous without further context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_projects_add_field_for_org or github_projects_add_item_for_user. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present. Description implies a write operation but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permission requirements, where the fork is created (e.g., under authenticated user), or any side effects on the original repo.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief (two words) but under-specified. Conciseness is not beneficial when critical information is omitted. A longer description would be warranted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a complex optional body parameter, the description is woefully incomplete. Agent lacks understanding of tool behavior, required inputs beyond owner/repo, and expected results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for parameters (owner, repo, body). However, description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's simple labels. Baseline of 3 applies; no extra value provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Create a fork' is a verb+resource but lacks specificity. It does not clarify that this is for repositories, possibly confusing with other fork operations like gists_fork or security_advisories_create_fork, which also exist in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling includes security_advisories_create_fork, but no distinction provided, leaving the agent without decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It states nothing about what the tool returns, authentication requirements, side effects, or pagination behavior. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence) but lacks essential information. It is under-specified rather than concise, as the tool's complexity requires more explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides almost no context. It does not explain what a commit is, how pagination works, or what the response contains. This is completely inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions in the input schema). The description adds no extra meaning; a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a commit' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It does not specify what action is performed (e.g., retrieving a specific commit's details) and fails to differentiate from sibling tools like list_commits or compare_commits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of appropriate context, prerequisites, or situations where another tool should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention authentication needs, side effects, idempotency, or what setting a subscription entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief but lacks substantive content. It does not earn its place as it omits critical details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide sufficient context. It fails to describe the effect of the operation, the role of the body parameter, or any related constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has descriptions that are trivial (e.g., 'thread_id' repeated). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides; it does not explain the body structure or expected values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set a thread subscription' clearly identifies the action and resource. It is straightforward, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_thread_subscription' or 'get_thread_subscription_for_authenticated_user'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and a three-word description, there is no disclosure of behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, or required permissions. The tool's behavior is opaque beyond its name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at three words, but it lacks any structure such as bullet points or sections. It is not verbose, but its minimalism does not earn a higher score as it sacrifices informativeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of a check suite, the return format, or any constraints. The tool's context among many similar siblings is entirely ignored.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with basic descriptions ('owner', 'repo', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a check suite' specifies a verb and resource, but it is too terse and fails to explain what a check suite is or how it differs from similar tools like github_checks_create (which creates a check run) or github_checks_get_suite. It is not a tautology but lacks sufficient distinctiveness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no indication of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. Among numerous sibling tools, including other checks-related ones, this omission is critical.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose behavioral details like required permissions, error conditions (e.g., ref already exists), or what side effects occur. The agent is left uninformed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At three words, the description is overly terse. While concise, it sacrifices necessary detail, failing to earn its place with valuable information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It omits the type of reference, required body fields, return value, and usage context, making it nearly unusable for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, parameter descriptions are merely the names ('owner', 'repo', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema, and the 'body' parameter remains opaque with no defined structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a reference' indicates a verb and resource, but it is vague. It does not specify whether it creates a branch, tag, or other type of reference, and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'github_git_create_tag'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'github_git_create_tag' or 'github_git_update_ref'. The agent receives no context to decide appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are available, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, event types, or read-only nature. The description fails to provide the behavioral context that an AI agent needs to understand the tool's side effects or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at only 4 words. While brevity is generally good, it comes at the cost of missing necessary context and structure. The single sentence does not earn its place due to lack of informative content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide comprehensive context. It is completely inadequate, lacking any explanation of return values, prerequisites, or behavior. This severely limits an agent's ability to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All parameters (owner, repo, issue_number, per_page, page) are described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, but the schema descriptions are adequate. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List issue events' clearly indicates the tool's action and resource (listing events for an issue). However, it does not differentiate from closely related sibling tools such as 'github_issues_list_events_for_repo' or 'github_issues_list_events_for_timeline', which could lead to confusion for an AI agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listing events for a repo or timeline. The description lacks any contextual cues or explicit recommendations, forcing the agent to rely on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description lacks any behavioral details such as what the rendering produces (HTML, plain text?), whether it requires authentication, or any side effects. The agent has no clue about the outcome or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (4 words) but at the cost of necessary information. While concise, it is under-specified, failing to convey critical details about usage or behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema or annotations exist. The description does not explain what the rendered output looks like, potential errors, or any contextual constraints. For a tool that likely produces HTML, this is severely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'body' described as 'Request body (JSON object)'. The description adds no clarity on how to structure the body (e.g., expected properties, markdown format). The schema itself provides only a generic description, leaving the agent uncertain about required fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Render a Markdown document' which clearly indicates the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'github_markdown_render_raw', leaving ambiguity about when to use each.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., the raw render sibling). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only, failure modes, or output details. Minimal transparency for a simple get operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is too short and lacks necessary detail. While concise, it is under-specified with no structure to convey additional information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and no annotation. Description does not explain what the import status contains or how to interpret results. Completely inadequate for context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions for 'owner' and 'repo' are minimal (just parameter names). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states the action 'Get an import status' which is clear but vague. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_status_for_org or specify what kind of import.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or context such as requiring a started import.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update' without revealing what mutations occur, required permissions, destructive potential, or any side effects. This is a critical gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is extremely concise (5 words), it is under-specified. Conciseness is not valuable if it omits essential information; the phrase does not earn its place by providing substantive guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and a complex nested parameter (body), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, required permissions, or how to structure the request body, leaving the agent without sufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema description coverage is 100%, the descriptions are merely parameter names (e.g., 'org'). The tool description adds no additional meaning about the 'body' parameter or which fields can be modified, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (update) and resource (project item) with organizational scope, distinguishing it from siblings like add, delete, and for_user variants. However, it lacks specificity about what parts of the project item can be updated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. The minimal description offers no decision support for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description only states 'Create' implying mutation, but no details on side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what gets created. With no annotations, more disclosure is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Overly terse single sentence. While concise, it lacks necessary detail and does not earn its place as it fails to provide useful information beyond the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema or annotations, the description should be more comprehensive. It omits what an attestation is, required body structure, and expected outcome.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's brief 'owner', 'repo', and 'Request body (JSON object)'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create an attestation' is vague. It does not specify what type of attestation (e.g., artifact attestation, commit attestation) or clarify the context beyond the tool name. Among siblings like list_attestations and delete_attestations, the purpose is not differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., other attestation tools or creation methods). No context or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as return format, handling of directories vs files, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description adds minimal value beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but insufficient. It lacks structure and front-loads no key information beyond the bare minimum.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is severely incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain what the tool returns, how paths are resolved, or any edge cases, making it nearly useless for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, but each parameter description is minimal (e.g., 'owner', 'repo'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get repository content' is a verb+resource but lacks specificity about what 'content' entails (e.g., file content, directory listing). It does not distinguish from siblings like github_repos_get (repo metadata) or github_repos_get_commit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and a bare description, the tool discloses no behavioral traits. Critical information about side effects (none expected for a list), authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format is entirely absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two words), but it sacrifices informative value for brevity. While not verbose, it fails to earn its place by adding context beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema and moderate complexity (pagination parameters), the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a paginated list of users with IDs and details). Instead, it provides no context, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the input schema alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the 'since' and 'per_page' parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List users' clearly states the verb and resource, but it is overly generic and fails to distinguish from numerous sibling user-list tools (e.g., github_users_list_followers_for_user, github_users_list_gpg_keys_for_user). It does not specify which users (e.g., all users, authenticated user's followers) or the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, pagination behavior, or any criteria for choosing this over other user list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to indicate that deletion is irreversible, potentially requires specific permissions, or that the variable must exist. This is a critical gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. While front-loaded, it essentially restates the tool name and adds minimal value. It earns a middle score due to being too brief to be helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and a single-sentence description, the tool is severely incomplete. An agent lacks crucial context about side effects, permissions, error conditions, and prerequisites, making it risky to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions, but those descriptions are minimal (just the parameter names). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'repository variable', directly indicating the tool's function. It is specific enough to distinguish from many sibling tools, though a brief note on scope (e.g., 'repository-level variable') would improve clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like deleting an organization variable or a repository secret, nor does it mention prerequisites or scenarios where it should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Get an artifact' with no indication of whether it is read-only, destructive, or has rate limits. Does not explain what happens to the artifact or system state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (3 words) but lacks necessary details. Conciseness is positive, but under-specification harms usability. Every sentence should earn its place; here it does not provide enough value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, and description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., artifact metadata, URL, expiration). Given many sibling tools, this is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions (though just parameter names). Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states verb and resource ('Get an artifact') but does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_actions_download_artifact or github_actions_list_artifacts_for_repo. The meaning of 'get' is ambiguous—does it return metadata, URL, or content? Vague purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain when to use this over github_actions_download_artifact or github_actions_list_artifacts_for_repo. The agent is left without context to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not indicate that the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The word 'get' implies a read operation, but this is implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (3 words), but it is under-specified. It does not provide enough value for an AI agent to understand the tool's purpose and usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (3 params, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It fails to explain what 'usage' entails or what the response contains. There is no mention of output format or typical use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage but parameter descriptions are just the parameter names. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. For example, 'workflow_id' is not explained in context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get workflow usage' which indicates retrieving usage data for a workflow, but it's vague about what kind of usage (e.g., minutes, storage). Among sibling tools like 'get_workflow_run_usage', the purpose is not clearly differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_workflow_run_usage' or 'get_actions_cache_usage'. The description does not mention context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, or data scope (e.g., organization-level stats). The short description does not compensate for the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only one sentence, which is concise, but it lacks substance to be effective. It is minimally structured but not overly verbose; however, the brevity comes at the cost of clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for a tool with three parameters and no output schema. It does not explain what the returned summary stats contain, how they relate to other API insights tools, or any important constraints like rate limits. Sibling context suggests differentiation is needed but absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (org, min_timestamp, max_timestamp) with ISO 8601 format details. The description adds no additional context, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get summary stats' is vague, lacking specificity on what summary stats refer to (e.g., GitHub API Insights for an organization). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_summary_stats_by_actor or get_subject_stats, requiring the agent to infer scope from the tool name alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description omits context such as prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to rely on the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description offers no details on side effects, error conditions, or return format. It does not even state whether the operation is read-only or safe.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (3 words), which is concise but at the cost of clarity. It front-loads the verb and object, but lacks necessary context. Every word earns its place, but it does not provide sufficient information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what information is returned by the check, nor does it clarify the purpose of the body parameter. The agent would not be able to understand the tool's behavior from this description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with client_id and body already described in the schema. The description adds no new information about the parameters beyond the schema's minimal descriptions. The body parameter's structure is left unspecified, but the schema already indicates it is a free-form JSON object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Check a token' is vague and generic. It does not specify the type of token (e.g., GitHub App installation token) or what 'check' means (validity, permissions, etc.). Even though the tool name indicates it is for GitHub Apps, the description fails to differentiate it from other token-related tools like reset_token or scope_token.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools for token management (e.g., github_apps_reset_token, github_apps_scope_token), but the description does not clarify the specific scenario for this check operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It does not disclose read-only nature, auth requirements, or any side effects. Just 'Get' implies safety but no explicit confirmation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short (two words), but appropriate for a simple retrieval. Lacks detail but not verbose. Could be more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so description should explain what is returned. It does not. Also missing behavioral context like rate limits or data scope. Incomplete for agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter description 'classroom_id'. Tool description adds no parameter info beyond schema, baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Get a classroom', which is a clear verb+resource pair, but lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'list_classrooms' or 'get_an_assignment'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., listing classrooms when id is unknown). No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, required permissions, side effects, or return value structure. The description carries the full burden but offers virtually no transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it lacks structure (e.g., no sections) and is under-specified for a tool with multiple siblings. It is adequately sized but not effectively structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, read operation), the description does not explain what is returned (no output schema) or the scope (org-level). It leaves out important context that would help an agent understand the tool's role within the code security family.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but parameter descriptions (just 'org' and 'configuration_id') add no meaning beyond the names. The tool description does not provide additional parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 applies per guidelines.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a code security configuration' is clear about the action and resource, but it is vague about the scope (org-level). Among many similar sibling tools (e.g., get_configuration_for_repository), it does not specify what kind of configuration this gets, leaving ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_configuration_for_repository or get_single_configuration_for_enterprise. The agent has no context to choose correctly among many similar code security get tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get') but discloses no behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens if the codespace doesn't exist. Minimal transparency beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) and front-loaded. However, it is too minimal, omitting necessary details. It earns its place but lacks sufficient content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description does not indicate what the tool returns (no output schema provided), leaving the agent in the dark about the response structure. For a simple get operation, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema's parameter description 'codespace_name' merely repeats the parameter name. The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage details for the parameter, failing to enhance understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a codespace for the authenticated user', specifying the verb 'Get', resource 'codespace', and scope. However, it does not differentiate from other codespace 'get' tools (e.g., github_codespaces_get_codespaces_for_user_in_org), lacking explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list or create codespace tools. The description gives no context on usage scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits like whether permissions are overwritten, the scope of changes, or any side effects. The description does not add value beyond the bare action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While concise, the description is overly brief and omits critical details. It is not efficiently front-loaded because it lacks necessary context, making it under-specified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of setting permissions and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the expected format of the request body, the effect of the operation, or potential errors.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain the meaning of the 'body' parameter, which is a complex object with no schema details. Since the schema covers parameter names but not semantics, the description should clarify what the body contains, but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('Copilot coding agent permissions for an organization'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get' or per-repo enable/disable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as when to set permissions at the organization level versus per-repository, or what prerequisites are needed (e.g., admin permissions).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Get a repository secret.' It does not disclose what happens if the secret does not exist, whether it returns the value or metadata, or any safety implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at four words, but it sacrifices useful information. It could include more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, any prerequisites, or error conditions, leaving the agent without essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, each parameter description is just the parameter name (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'secret_name'), adding no additional meaning. The tool description does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a repository secret' clearly states a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that create, update, or delete secrets. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar get tools like get_org_secret.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_org_secret or actions-related secret tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, permissions, or context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read vs write, pagination behavior, data returned, or any side effects. The presence of per_page and page parameters in the schema is not mentioned in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks substance and structure. It is not verbose but does not convey enough information to be deemed fully appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'assignments' are, the data format, or any constraints. The tool's complexity is not matched by the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. The description does not explain parameter purpose beyond their names, but baseline is 3 due to full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is 'Get organization assignments', which is vague and does not specify what type of assignments, for which enterprise/team, or what the result contains. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_assignment' (singular) or bulk operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context such as enterprise/team scoping. The description is a bare statement with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, idempotency, or auth requirements. The 4-word description provides none of this, leaving the agent to guess. A GET operation is implied but not stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While very concise, the description is underspecified. It conveys minimal information and fails to earn its place by omitting critical details. Conciseness should not sacrifice completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and the high number of sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain return values, pagination, or how this event retrieval differs from listing events. The agent cannot reliably select this tool based on this description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'event_id') are merely the parameter names. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get an issue event' clearly states the verb and resource, but it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like github_issues_get, github_issues_get_comment, or github_issues_list_events. It does not clarify what constitutes an 'issue event' versus other event types, making it vague for selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives such as github_issues_list_events or github_issues_get. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, return format, pagination, or whether it requires authentication. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only three words, which is too brief to be considered conciseness. It omits essential context and does not pack meaningful value into a short format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to mention that this is part of GitHub Migrations, what commit authors represent, or how the 'since' parameter paginates. The agent has no context to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter descriptions already present in the schema. It does not explain the purpose of the 'since' parameter or how it relates to commit authors.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get commit authors' states the verb and resource, but is too vague to distinguish from other 'get' tools in the same migration group, such as github_migrations_get_status_for_org. It does not clarify that it pertains to migration commit authors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., migrations), or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose side effects (e.g., mutates author mappings), required permissions, or return behavior. 'Map' could imply mutation but is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, very concise, but vague; lacks structure to convey complex operation. Brevity here sacrifices clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given lack of output schema and complex parameters (especially 'body'), description is insufficient. Agent cannot infer what mapping does, whether it creates, updates, or queries, or what 'body' contains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with minimal descriptions (e.g., 'owner', 'repo'). The description adds no extra meaning to parameters like 'body' or 'author_id'. Baseline 3 as schema carries the load.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is 'Map a commit author' which is vague; 'map' is unclear (update? associate?). Sibling tool 'github_migrations_get_commit_authors' shows this relates to migrations but doesn't differentiate purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_commit_authors or update_import. The description does not mention context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Start an organization migration' without mentioning side effects, required permissions, or what the initiation entails. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and important details. While there is no wasted text, it is too brief to be fully helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a nested body parameter and no output schema, yet the description provides no details on the body's structure or the migration process. It does not answer what happens after starting or how to monitor progress, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but the descriptions are minimal ('org' and 'Request body (JSON object)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, meeting the baseline of 3 as per schema coverage guidelines.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Start an organization migration' is clear about the action and resource, but it is too minimal and does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_migrations_start_for_authenticated_user or other migration operations. It lacks specificity on migration type or scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. There is no information on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_migrations_start_for_authenticated_user or github_migrations_start_import, nor any prerequisites or context for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is asynchronous, what permissions are required, or if it has side effects (e.g., creating background jobs). The description 'Start an import' is too vague for safe agent invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (4 words), which is concise but at the expense of completeness. It is front-loaded but lacks necessary details to be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (starting a migration import) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a 'migration import' entails, what parameters are required in the body, or what the return value indicates. The lack of an output schema further reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are minimal ('owner', 'repo', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, and the 'body' parameter lacks details on its expected structure (e.g., required fields like vcs_url).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The tool name 'github_migrations_start_import' clearly indicates it starts a migration import, and the description 'Start an import' aligns with that. However, the description could be more specific (e.g., 'Starts a source import using the GitHub Migration API') to differentiate from other import types like repository imports.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_migrations_cancel_import' or 'github_migrations_get_import_status'. It does not mention prerequisites or context for starting an import.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states the action without explaining side effects, required permissions, or consequences. It does not mention that this is part of a migration workflow or that it reverses a previous lock.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence) but fails to convey essential information. Conciseness is not beneficial when it omits necessary context; the sentence does not earn its place as it merely repeats the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of GitHub migrations and the lack of an output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of unlocking a repository, the relationship to migration_id, or what happens after unlocking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Although the parameter descriptions in the schema are minimal (just parameter names), the tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters (org, migration_id, repo_name).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description restates the tool name without adding specificity. It says 'Unlock an organization repository', which is essentially the same as the tool name. There is no differentiation from sibling tools or clarification of what 'unlock' means in the context of migrations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when or why to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no context about the migration process or prerequisites for unlocking a repository.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states the action without detailing side effects (e.g., email sent, expiration, acceptance requirement). For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) and front-loaded, but its brevity comes at the cost of important detail. It is appropriately sized but lacks substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complex nested 'body' parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent would need details on required body fields (e.g., email, role) and the behavior of the tool to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing basic meaning for both parameters. The description adds no additional value or context beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create an organization invitation' clearly states the verb and resource, but it is minimal and does not differentiate from similar invite-related tools like github_orgs_cancel_invitation or github_teams_add_member_legacy. It lacks specificity about the type of invitation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, permissions, or typical scenarios. The description does not help an agent decide when to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, permissions, or side effects. It only says 'Create', which is expected, but provides no additional context such as whether existing fields are checked or what the return indicates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is so brief that it sacrifices clarity. It qualifies as concise but under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of creating a custom issue field (typically requiring field type, name, etc. in the body), the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does beyond a minimal phrase, leaving the agent without enough information to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 100% schema coverage (minimal descriptions), the tool description adds no parameter information. It does not explain required fields within the 'body' object or any constraints, leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct the request.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'issue field', but it does not clarify what an 'issue field' is or distinguish it from related tools like 'create_issue_type'. It is not a tautology but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list, update, delete issue field, or create issue type). There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions (likely admin), potential side effects (creating a resource), or rate limits. The agent is left without critical information for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded but incomplete, meaning it fails to earn its place by providing adequate information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of creating a GitHub webhook (multiple body fields, permission requirements) and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain the body schema, event types, or configuration options, making it nearly unusable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema includes minimal descriptions ('org' and 'Request body (JSON object)'), and the tool description adds no further meaning. With no details on the body structure (e.g., expected fields like 'config' or 'events'), the agent cannot construct valid requests.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create an organization webhook' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list, delete, or update webhooks. However, it could be more specific (e.g., 'creates a new webhook for a specified GitHub organization').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., repo-level webhook tools), nor are prerequisites like admin permissions or context about webhook events mentioned. The agent receives no help in choosing this over other webhook-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, required permissions, pagination behavior, or that it is a read-only operation. The schema includes pagination params but description does not explain their effect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (two words) but under-specified for a tool with 6 parameters and many siblings. Lacks front-loading of critical context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema; description does not explain what attestations are, return format, or any operational context. Inadequate for a 6-parameter tool with pagination and required subject_digest.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List attestations' states the verb and resource, but lacks scope. The tool name implies org-level, but the description does not differentiate from similar tools like github_users_list_attestations or github_repos_list_attestations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_orgs_list_attestations_bulk, github_users_list_attestations). No mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description gives no behavioral details such as whether the call is read-only, error conditions, authentication requirements, or response format. The agent is left with no insight beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The one-sentence description is front-loaded and minimal, but it is too sparse to be useful. It is concise but at the expense of necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema or return value explanation. The description fails to indicate what data is returned or any important constraints. For a tool fetching a package, this is severely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While schema coverage is 100%, each parameter description is merely the parameter name (e.g., 'org', 'package_type'), adding no meaning. The tool description does not elaborate on these parameters or their values, so the agent gains no additional understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action 'Get a package' for a specific scope 'organization', distinguishing it from user-focused variants. However, it lacks specificity about the type of package (e.g., container, npm) and does not differentiate from other get_package tools for org.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other package-related tools like delete, list, or get versions. No exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or what the response contains. The tool expects input parameters, but the description gives no hints about side effects or return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (three words), but it sacrifices clarity and structure. It is too terse to be informative, lacking any context or explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to use it, or how it differs from other project tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions 'username' and 'project_number'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the role of project_number or its format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get project for user' states the verb (get) and resource (project) and scope (for user), which is clear but lacks specificity. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_projects_get_for_org or github_projects_get_user_item, and it does not clarify what type of project (e.g., GitHub Projects).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_projects_get_for_org or github_projects_get_user_item. The name implies user-scoped, but no explicit direction is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description only says 'update', which is a mutation. It does not disclose side effects, permissions required, or behavior like partial vs. full replacement. The body parameter structure is not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only five words, which is too concise. It lacks structure such as headers or examples, and misses critical information that could be included without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete for an agent to use effectively. It does not explain what fields can be updated, the expected response, or error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage, but the descriptions are just the parameter names (e.g., 'username' for username). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, leaving the body object completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'update' and the resource 'project item for user', but lacks specificity about the scope (e.g., GitHub projects) and does not differentiate it from the sibling tool 'github_projects_update_item_for_org'. It is clear enough but not detailed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_projects_update_item_for_org' or other project tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, mutability effects, or side effects on branch protection. The description is too minimal to inform safe usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and technically concise, but it lacks crucial context. Conciseness does not compensate for under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, nested body object, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the body's structure, expected restrictions, or success/error responses.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with basic descriptions for owner, repo, branch, and body. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add app access restrictions' is vague and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'set_app_access_restrictions' or 'remove_app_access_restrictions'. It barely adds meaning beyond the tool name, lacking context about the specific type of app or restrictions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set, remove, team/user restrictions). There is no context about prerequisites, such as required permissions or branch protection status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description only states that it deletes, but doesn't disclose whether the action is irreversible, required permissions, or other side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but not front-loaded with critical information. It could include more specifics like the branch context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks details about prerequisites, effect on repository settings, or any associated risks.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are merely the parameter names ('owner', 'repo', 'branch'), adding no extra meaning. However, the parameter names are self-explanatory, and schema coverage is 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete commit signature protection' is a tautology, essentially restating the tool name without adding any differentiation from siblings like 'get' or 'create' counterparts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as retrieving or creating commit signature protection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, or idempotency. The minimal description assumes the user knows it's a read operation, but no explicit information is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely concise, the single-phrase description is too minimal to be helpful. It lacks structure and does not earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description fails to mention that the tool returns a repository object, nor does it explain any output. Without output schema, this information is critical but omitted. The description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema's parameter descriptions are tautological ('owner', 'repo'). The tool description adds no additional meaning; it does not clarify that owner is a GitHub username/org and repo is the repository name. Schema coverage is 100% but the existing descriptions are poor.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a repository' states the basic action and resource, but it is vague and does not differentiate from numerous sibling tools like get_content, get_branch, etc. It lacks specificity about what exactly is retrieved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not provide any context about prerequisites, scope, or situations where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It merely states 'List environments', implying a read-only operation but no disclosure of behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. The input schema covers parameters but not behavioral expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at two words, but this under-specification reduces clarity. While brevity is valued, here it sacrifices helpfulness. A more informative but still concise description would be better.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is severely incomplete given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, numerous siblings). It does not explain what the output represents, how pagination works, or when to prefer this over other list tools. This leaves an AI agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema alone documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List environments' provides a clear verb and resource, but it lacks specificity about what 'environments' refers to in GitHub context (deployment environments for a repo). It is minimally clear but does not differentiate from other list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With numerous sibling tools that also list resources (e.g., list branches, list deployments), the absence of usage context is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as the overwriting nature, required permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise but lacks critical details. It fails to efficiently convey key information about the tool's effect.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and only a minimal description, the tool definition is severely incomplete. It does not explain the replace semantics, authentication needs, or how to structure the body parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. The 'body' parameter is vaguely described as 'Request body (JSON object)' without specifying expected structure (e.g., list of team slugs). Schema descriptions are minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set team access restrictions' is specific but lacks differentiation from sibling tools like add/remove. It does not clarify that this replaces all existing restrictions, leaving ambiguity about its semantics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of add/remove or other related tools. The description fails to mention that it overwrites existing restrictions, which is critical for correct usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The single sentence provides no information about whether the tool overwrites existing settings, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, but it sacrifices informativeness. While it avoids verbosity, it fails to provide essential details, making it merely adequate in structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (update with a nested body parameter, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the body structure, required fields, or behavioral implications, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although input schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'branch', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The description does not add any meaning about what the body should contain, such as required fields like required_status_checks or restrictions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update branch protection' specifies a verb and resource, but it lacks specificity regarding what aspects of branch protection can be updated (e.g., required status checks, pull request reviews). It is minimally adequate but does not distinguish from sibling tools like update_status_check_protection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_status_check_protection or update_pull_request_review_protection. The description does not mention that this tool updates the entire branch protection configuration via a JSON body.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description is a single sentence that does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, idempotency, side effects (e.g., what happens if membership already exists), or rate limits. The description fails to add value beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence), which is good for brevity, but it lacks sufficient detail to be fully informative. It is appropriately front-loaded but could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, nested body object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the behavior on success, error conditions, required permissions, or the structure of the request body. The agent has insufficient information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema coverage is 100%, but parameter descriptions are just names (e.g., 'org', 'team_slug', 'username', 'body') with no additional meaning. The description does not explain the purpose of each parameter or the expected structure of the 'body' object. The description adds no meaningful semantic beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Add or update team membership for a user', which is specific about the action (add/update) and the resource (team membership for a user). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_teams_add_member_legacy or github_teams_add_or_update_membership_for_user_legacy, so the score is 4.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when this tool is preferred over other team-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 the action. No disclosure of side effects (e.g., what happens to the user's team access), permissions needed, rate limits, or reversibility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and not verbose, but it is overly brief to the point of lacking necessary detail. It is concise but not sufficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a removal action with no output schema, the description fails to convey what happens after removal, whether the operation is reversible, or any dependencies. It is incomplete for an agent to reliably use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions are minimal ('team_id', 'username') and the description adds no additional meaning or constraints (e.g., format, scope, or how to find these values).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (remove) and the resource (team membership for a user), and notes it's a legacy version. However, among sibling tools like `github_teams_remove_member_legacy` and `github_teams_remove_membership_for_user_in_org`, the description does not distinguish this from them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or which scenario is appropriate for this legacy version vs others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the action itself. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., what blocking entails), reversibility, authentication requirements, or the scope of the block. The agent is left with no insight into the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices informative content. While not verbose, it could benefit from a bit more structure to improve comprehensibility without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context about what blocking a user means in this context (e.g., personal block vs. organization block), the effect on interactions, and any necessary permissions. The agent cannot fully understand the tool's role from this description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, but the description merely repeats 'username' without adding context or meaning. The description does not explain what the username represents (e.g., the user to block) or any constraints, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Block a user' is a clear verb+resource pairing that states the action and target. The tool name further clarifies it's at the user level, distinguishing from 'github_orgs_block_user'. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from similar user-level tools like 'github_users_unblock' or 'github_users_check_blocked'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., authenticated user blocking another), or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The description offers no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Create', which implies mutation, but omits details like whether it overwrites existing variables, required permissions, or side effects. The body parameter is also unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it omits necessary context. While concise, it sacrifices completeness, so it is adequate but not optimized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about scope, body structure, and behavior. It fails to explain that this creates a variable in a specific environment (implied by parameters) or what shape the body should take. The tool is incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% but the descriptions are uninformative (e.g., just the parameter name). The tool description adds no additional meaning. The 'body' parameter is vague ('Request body (JSON object)') without clarifying expected fields (e.g., name, value).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create an environment variable' clearly states the action and resource type, but it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'github_actions_create_org_variable' or 'github_actions_create_repo_variable'. The parameters clarify it's for a specific environment, but the description lacks that detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., org or repo level variables), nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. The agent receives no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning idempotency, required permissions, or effects on existing secrets. The agent gets no insight into what happens during updates or if the body must contain encrypted values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (7 words) but sacrifices necessary detail. It does not earn its place as it fails to inform the agent about critical aspects like the body parameter or usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters (including a complex nested object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks guidance on error handling, return values, or the required format for the request body.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but parameter descriptions are minimal (just the parameter names). The 'body' parameter is described as 'Request body (JSON object)' without specifying expected structure or required fields. The description adds no meaningful context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (create or update) and the resource (repository secret), which matches the tool name and distinguishes it from related tools like delete or get. However, it does not specify the context (GitHub Actions), which is implied by the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_or_update_org_secret or environment secret tools. The description lacks any contextual cues for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, reversibility, or side effects. The agent has no insight beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise, but it sacrifices substance. It is front-loaded but lacks explanatory power.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the extensive sibling tools and complexity of GitHub Actions, this description is insufficient. It provides no context about the effect of disabling a workflow or return values, and there is no output schema to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but all parameter descriptions are just the parameter names (owner, repo, workflow_id). The description adds no additional semantic meaning, format guidance, or constraints beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Disable a workflow' clearly identifies the verb and resource, and the tool name further clarifies. It differentiates from sibling 'enable_workflow', though it could 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'disable_selected_repository_github_actions_organization' or the enable counterpart. No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not mention that this tool downloads the artifact content, what format is returned (e.g., binary stream), authentication requirements, or that it requires an artifact_id from a prior list call. For a data retrieval tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, which is efficient but at the cost of missing critical context. It front-loads the verb and object but lacks structure to convey necessary details for correct invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (four required parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to find the artifact_id, what archive_format values are accepted, or what the download response looks like. The parameter descriptions in the schema are minimal and do not compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage but parameter descriptions are just parameter names (e.g., 'owner', 'artifact_id'). The description adds no additional meaning about the required artifact_id (e.g., how to obtain it) or archive_format (e.g., valid values like 'zip' or 'tgz'). The agent must guess these details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Download an artifact' states a specific verb and resource, but it does not differentiate from sibling download tools like download_job_logs_for_workflow_run or download_workflow_run_logs. The purpose is clear in isolation but lacks context to distinguish it from similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for downloading build artifacts by ID, nor does it exclude log downloads or other artifact-related operations. An agent would have no context to choose this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. However, it only states a generic action without explaining the output format (e.g., returns a redirect URL?), side effects, or authentication requirements. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (4 words) but at the cost of necessary context. It is front-loaded but does not earn its place as it essentially repeats the tool name. A slightly longer description providing clarifications would be more effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and minimal schema descriptions, the description fails to provide a complete picture. It omits details about the response format, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., required permissions). The tool is simple, but the description still lacks essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100% (3 parameters with descriptions), the descriptions are merely the parameter names (e.g., 'owner'). The tool description adds no meaning about how these parameters relate to the action, leaving the agent to infer context from the trivial schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Download workflow run logs' clearly states the action and resource. While it could better differentiate from sibling tools like download_artifact or download_job_logs, the name and description together make the purpose evident.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., download_job_logs_for_workflow_run, download_workflow_run_attempt_logs). The description lacks context about use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose authentication needs, rate limits, return format, or error behavior (e.g., if variable does not exist). It only says 'Get' without specifying what is returned (name, value, etc.). Minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) but lacks structure such as bullet points, examples, or sections. It is not verbose, but it is under-specified at only 4 words. Adequate but could be improved.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, prerequisites (e.g., environment must exist), or behavior on error. Essential context for a simple get operation is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are just parameter names (e.g., 'owner', 'repo'), offering no additional meaning. The tool description does not elaborate on their purpose or relationships. With 100% schema coverage but unhelpful descriptions, the baseline for high coverage is 3, but the description adds no value, warranting a 2.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get an environment variable' states the verb and resource but is a tautology of the tool name. It does not specify that it retrieves a variable from a specific GitHub Actions environment in a repo, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like get_environment_secret or list_environment_variables. The purpose is clear but minimal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_environment_variables, get_environment_secret, or create_environment_variable. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It fails to mention that this is a read operation, what happens if the runner is not found, required permissions, or any side effects. The one-line description provides no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) but lacks structure and front-loading of critical information. It omits necessary details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a self-hosted runner is, what the returned data contains, or any prerequisites. The description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but the parameter descriptions in the schema are merely the parameter names ('org', 'runner_id'). The tool description adds no additional meaning or context about these parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage but lack of elaboration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a self-hosted runner for an organization' clearly states the action and resource, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_actions_get_self_hosted_runner_for_repo' or list tools. The purpose is minimally clear but lacks specificity to distinguish it from similar operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listing runners or getting a runner for a repo. The description does not include any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'Get workflow run usage', which implies a read operation but does not disclose additional traits: auth requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it mutates state. Contradicts annotations: false.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at 4 words, but this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. Every sentence should earn its place; here, the single sentence fails to provide necessary detail, making it insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple getter, but with no output schema and a sparse description, the agent has no information about the response structure or what 'usage' data is returned. The description is incomplete for effective invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), but those descriptions are merely the parameter names (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'run_id'). The tool description adds no extra meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get workflow run usage' states the verb and resource, but 'usage' is vague—it could refer to billing, runtime, or resource consumption. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_workflow_run' by specifying 'usage', but lacks clarity on what aspects of usage are returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_workflow_run' or 'get_workflow_usage'. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, pagination behavior, or output structure. The description carries the full burden but adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only three words, which is too sparse. While short, it lacks essential information (purpose differentiation, usage context) that would be necessary for an AI agent. True conciseness would retain key details without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large number of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify the scope (organization-level vs. repo-level), provide hints about the return type, or explain pagination. No output schema exists, so the description should compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all four parameters. The description provides no additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'list' and resource 'repository organization variables', but the meaning of 'repository organization variables' is ambiguous: it could mean organization variables accessible to a repository or repository-specific variables. It does not distinguish from siblings like list_org_variables or list_repo_variables.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as list_org_variables or list_repo_variables. The description lacks explicit context for selection among many similar list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Set' implying mutation, but does not describe whether settings are overwritten, merged, or what permissions are required. The effects on the organization's self-hosted runners configuration are unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but its vagueness means it fails to convey sufficient information. Every word should add value; here, 'settings' is too generic.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (mutation tool, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, side effects, or required permissions. For a tool that modifies organization settings, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers both parameters, but the descriptions are minimal ('org' is just 'org', 'body' is 'Request body (JSON object)'). The tool description adds no further meaning, so an agent cannot infer valid fields for the body object. Baseline 3 is lowered due to low-quality schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set self-hosted runners settings for an organization' identifies the resource and action, but 'settings' is vague and does not specify what aspects of self-hosted runner permissions are being set. Among many sibling tools, this does not clearly differentiate from other setter tools like 'github_actions_set_selected_repositories_self_hosted_runners_organization'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. The description lacks any indication of typical use cases or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral traits. It fails to state that this is a read operation, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or data scope beyond what is inferred from the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only four words, which is excessively brief. While concise, it omits critical information and lacks any structure or detail that would help the agent use the tool correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has four parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what 'summary stats' includes, the time range behavior, and how it differs from related tools. It fails to provide this context, leaving the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter described minimally (e.g., 'org', 'user_id', timestamp format). The description adds no additional context beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get summary stats by user' indicates the tool retrieves summary statistics for a specific user, which is clear but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like get_summary_stats or get_summary_stats_by_actor. The phrase 'summary stats' is vague, leaving the exact nature of the stats ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_summary_stats_by_actor or get_time_stats_by_user. There are no hints about prerequisites, limitations, or best use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The description only implies it is a read operation but provides no details on pagination, rate limits, or what data is returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (two words) and lacks structure. While concise, it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters), absence of output schema, and many similar sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'user stats' are or how they differ from other stats.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get user stats' identifies the verb and resource but is vague. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_summary_stats or get_route_stats_by_actor, which also target 'stats'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other API insights tools. There are no prerequisites or context for appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits. The agent cannot infer whether this is a safe read operation or returns mock data, which is critical given the 'stubbed' label.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (a single phrase), but it lacks essential information. While concise, it is underspecified and would benefit from at least one additional clarifying sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of a non-stubbed sibling tool and no output schema, the description fails to explain what 'stubbed' means, the use case, or the return format. The tool is incomplete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (per_page, page), covering 100% of schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already supplies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List plans (stubbed)' which provides a verb and resource, but does not clarify what 'stubbed' means or distinguish it from the sibling tool 'github_apps_list_plans'. The term 'stubbed' is ambiguous for an AI agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus the non-stubbed version or alternatives. The description lacks any context about appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations and the description provides no behavioral details (e.g., permissions, idempotency, error cases, return value). The agent cannot infer any behavioral traits beyond the basic 'update' operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but omits essential details about parameters and behavior. It is not sufficiently informative for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having three parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain what the body should contain, the expected outcome, or any constraints. This leaves significant gaps for correct tool usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are minimal ('org', 'campaign_number', 'Request body (JSON object)') and the tool description adds no additional meaning. The body object's structure is not explained, which is critical for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a campaign' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (campaign), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list. However, it does not specify what aspects can be updated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description lacks context on when to update vs create/delete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, required authentication, rate limits, or what side effects occur. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence). However, it is underspecified and lacks structure. While brevity is valued, this description omits essential details needed for correct tool invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain the output format, possible errors, or any additional context. The tool is simple but still requires more completeness to be useful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter (assignment_id) with a tautological description 'assignment_id'. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage but zero added value, the parameter semantics are poorly conveyed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get assignment grades' states the verb and resource, but is very terse and does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_classroom_list_accepted_assignments_for_an_assignment, which might also return grade-related data. Lacks clarity on the scope of 'grades'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Agents are left to infer usage from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavior, but the minimal phrase 'Get details' only implies a read operation. It fails to disclose whether the endpoint is idempotent, requires specific authentication, or has rate limits. The agent cannot assess side effects or safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but this comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. It is front-loaded with the core action but omits essential details, making it minimally adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, output schema, or parameter description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what export details are returned, how to obtain export_id, or any prerequisites. The agent lacks critical context to use the tool effectively among hundreds of siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 required parameters with descriptions that simply repeat the parameter names (codespace_name, export_id), providing zero semantic value. The tool description adds no context about what these parameters represent or their expected formats, leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get details about a codespace export' clearly indicates the tool retrieves information about a specific export, distinguishing it from export creation (e.g., github_codespaces_export_for_authenticated_user). However, it does not elaborate on what 'details' entails, leaving ambiguity about the response content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as github_codespaces_get_for_authenticated_user (which gets codespace details, not export details). The description does not mention that an export_id is required nor how to obtain it, leaving the agent without context for proper invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get a repository public key', which implies a read operation, but does not explain whether it is idempotent, what the response contains (e.g., key_id, key), or any authentication or rate-limit considerations. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and to the point. It contains no redundancy or unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include behavioral context without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the public key is (e.g., used for encrypting secrets) and what the expected return value looks like. The tool is simple but lacks critical context about its purpose and output, making it incomplete for an agent that might need to use the key subsequently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with minimal descriptions ('owner', 'repo'), but the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond those field names. It does not explain the expected format or any constraints (e.g., owner must be a GitHub username or org name). The description fails to add value beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a repository public key' clearly states the action (get) and resource (repository public key), but it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'github_actions_get_repo_public_key' or 'github_codespaces_get_org_public_key'. The scope is limited to 'repository', which is helpful, but lacks specificity about the key's purpose (e.g., for encrypting codespaces secrets).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'github_actions_get_repo_public_key' or 'github_codespaces_get_org_public_key'. There is also no mention of prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'stop' without explaining effects (e.g., state preservation, billing, recoverability). Critical traits for a stop operation are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (4 words), which is concise but under-specified. It lacks necessary detail, so conciseness comes at the expense of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover side effects, return values, or usage context, leaving the agent underinformed about a simple but potentially impactful operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter with a description that merely repeats its name. The tool description adds no explanation of what the parameter represents or how to use it, failing to add value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Stop' and resource 'codespace', clearly indicating the action. However, it provides no additional context to distinguish from sibling tools like stop_in_organization or start_for_authenticated_user, making it merely a restatement of the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_codespaces_stop_in_organization). The description does not mention scope, prerequisites, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning that this operation overwrites the selected repositories, requires specific permissions, or that the body parameter must contain a 'selected_repository_ids' array. Critical behavioral details are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but sacrifices useful details. It could be expanded to include parameter requirements and usage context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the body schema, differentiate from sibling tools, or mention side effects. The agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based solely on the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the required parameters, but the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The 'body' parameter is described as 'Request body (JSON object)' with no details on expected structure, leaving the agent to guess. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema provides basic info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set selected repositories for an organization secret' is clear about the action and resource, but it does not explicitly mention Dependabot, which could cause confusion with similar tools for GitHub Actions. The name includes 'dependabot', so the purpose is still understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_actions_set_selected_repos_for_org_secret or github_dependabot_add_selected_repo_to_org_secret. The agent receives no context on when to prefer this tool or what prerequisites are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, permissions required, return value, or side effects. The description is too terse to convey behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one short sentence) and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices essential information for brevity, making it marginally acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens on success/failure, error handling, or what the response contains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions for parameters are trivial (just repeating parameter names), adding no meaning beyond the schema itself. The tool description 'Add team member' does not elucidate parameter semantics either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add team member' is clear in a minimal sense, matching the tool name. However, it lacks specificity: it does not indicate that it adds a single member to an enterprise team, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like bulk_add.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bulk_add, list, remove) or any prerequisites. There is no explicit when/when-not context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits but fails to do so. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or what happens if members do not exist. The body parameter's structure is left completely opaque, leaving the agent without crucial behavioral expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, making it concise but overly terse. It lacks structure and fails to provide essential information, balancing brevity against completeness. It is not an example of efficient communication since it sacrifices clarity for shortness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (multiple siblings, a body parameter) and the absence of an output schema, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain what constitutes a 'team member', the expected format of the body, or any response behavior. The agent would lack sufficient context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema's parameter descriptions are minimal ('enterprise', 'enterprise-team', 'Request body (JSON object)'), and the tool description adds no further meaning. The body parameter's expected properties are undefined, and the description offers no clarification, resulting in poor semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Bulk remove team members' reiterates the tool name with minor elaboration, providing a clear verb and resource but without additional context on scope or differentiation from sibling tools like '_bulk_add' or '_remove'. It is minimally adequate but does not enhance understanding beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this bulk removal tool versus the singular '_remove' or other sibling tools like '_add'. The description lacks any contextual cues for decision-making, such as prerequisites or scenarios where bulk operation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral context. It only states the action but does not disclose whether it is destructive, required permissions, rate limits, or what 'bulk' entails (e.g., whether multiple organizations can be removed in one call). The description lacks essential behavioral cues.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two words) but at the expense of completeness. For a tool with a nested body parameter and bulk semantics, the description underspecifies. It is not appropriately sized for the complexity involved.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the body parameter format, the bulk behavior, return values, or success/error conditions. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema parameter descriptions are just names ('enterprise', 'enterprise-team', 'Request body'), providing no additional meaning. The tool description adds no semantic value for parameters. For a complex bulk operation with a nested body parameter, the agent needs much more detail about expected structure and values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove organization assignments' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'github_enterprise_team_organizations_add' or 'bulk_add' by indicating removal. However, it could be more specific about what is being removed (e.g., organization assignments from the enterprise team).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent has no information about appropriate scenarios for bulk removal compared to individual deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions required, or return behavior. For a read operation, even basic indications of safety are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (3 words) and front-loaded, but at the expense of necessary detail. It could include more context without significant bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of sibling tools and lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. An agent cannot determine what the tool returns or how to construct a valid request beyond the parameter names.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage but descriptions are tautological (e.g., 'enterprise' as description for enterprise). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get organization assignment', which clearly identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_assignments' (plural), leaving ambiguity about whether this retrieves a single assignment or all assignments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., 'get_assignments', 'add', 'delete'). The agent has no information about context or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is destructive, what side effects occur (e.g., creating a commit in the repository), or any required authentication or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one short sentence), which is efficient. However, it lacks substantive information, making it underinformative. A good balance would include more context without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Creating a commit requires specifying a tree, parent commits, message, etc. The description does not hint at these requirements, and the input schema's 'body' parameter is underdefined. No output schema is provided. The description is completely inadequate for the complexity of the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (all parameters have basic descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is minimal. Baseline 3 applies, but no extra value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a commit' clearly states the action and resource (creating a Git commit), but lacks specific details that would distinguish it from sibling git creation tools like create_blob or create_tag. The name itself adds clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_git_create_tree or github_git_create_tag. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether deletion is destructive, requires specific permissions, or what happens if the ref does not exist. For a delete operation, this lack of transparency is critical.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only three words in one sentence. While concise, it is overly minimal and lacks structure. It does not justify its brevity by being informative; it omits essential details that could be added without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is very incomplete. It fails to explain what 'reference' means in Git context, how the deletion affects the repository, or what the tool returns. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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. However, the schema descriptions are just parameter names ('owner', 'repo', 'ref') with no additional meaning. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so no improvement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a reference' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (reference), making the action understandable. However, it does not specify what type of reference (e.g., branch or tag) or distinguish it from related tools like github_git_create_ref or github_git_update_ref, which are present among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when or when not to use this tool. It does not mention alternatives or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from context. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a read operation, this is minimal but acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—one short sentence with no redundant words. However, it is too brief, sacrificing clarity for brevity, and could include more useful information without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description should hint at the return value (e.g., the structure of network settings). It does not. Additionally, with many sibling tools, it lacks contextual information to help an agent choose between similar tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the input schema has 100% coverage, the parameter descriptions are trivial (just parameter names). The description adds no meaning to the parameters; it does not explain what 'network_settings_id' refers to or how to obtain it. The tool description should compensate for weak schema descriptions but fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Get a hosted compute network settings resource for an organization', which clearly indicates a read operation. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'github_hosted_compute_get_network_configuration_for_org', potentially causing confusion since 'network settings' vs 'network configuration' is ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, such as required permissions or the relationship between network settings and other resources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only operation ('Check'), but with no annotations and no explicit statement about side effects, the agent cannot be certain it does not modify state. No details on authentication, rate limits, or error behavior are provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is brief but contains a grammatical error ('a issue'). It conveys the core function but could be more polished and structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and absence of an output schema, the description should at least indicate the return type (e.g., boolean) or response structure. It does not. The tool's behavior and expected output are under-specified for an AI agent to reliably invoke.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All four parameters have descriptions that merely repeat the parameter name (e.g., 'owner' described as 'owner'), adding no semantic value. The description itself does not elaborate on parameter meaning or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Check if a user can be assigned to a issue.' It clearly indicates a permission check before assignment, which distinguishes it from assignment mutation tools like add_assignees. However, the grammatical error and lack of differentiation from the similar sibling tool 'github_issues_check_user_can_be_assigned' slightly reduce clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., the similar sibling tool, or when to use add_assignees). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions that would inform tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Delete a milestone' with no additional context about side effects (e.g., does it cascade to issues?), required permissions, or irreversibility. This is insufficient for safe usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence (3 words). While concise, it is too brief and omits necessary details. It does not waste words but also does not provide enough information to be useful on its own.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and tautological schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, error conditions, required privileges, or how to obtain milestone_number. For a simple delete operation, more context is expected to avoid misuse.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions for parameters are tautological (e.g., 'owner' -> 'owner'), providing no real semantic value. The tool description adds no further clarification on how milestone_number is defined (it is typed as string but typically numeric). With 100% schema coverage but useless descriptions, the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (milestone). It is unambiguous but could be more specific by clarifying it refers to issue milestones (e.g., 'Delete an issue milestone from a repository'). The tool name and sibling context help, but on its own it is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_issues_update_milestone or github_issues_create_milestone. There is no mention of prerequisites, effects on issues associated with the milestone, or conditions for deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, or authentication needs. The agent gets no insight beyond the basic verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded but lacks explanatory depth. Conciseness is good but could be improved with more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description does not explain what 'raw mode' means, how it differs from the sibling tool, what the output format is, or any prerequisites. For a tool with a sibling and a nested parameter, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'body', which is described as 'Request body (JSON object)' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Render' and resource 'Markdown document', but 'raw mode' is ambiguous. It does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'github_markdown_render', leaving the agent unsure of the difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'github_markdown_render'. The agent has no context to choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavior but provides none. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, or the nature of the response. The description is silent on behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at 4 words, but it sacrifices informativeness. While it avoids verbosity, it does not provide enough value per sentence. A single sentence could be more descriptive without significant length increase.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large set of sibling tools and absence of output schema or annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'meta information' is returned, how it differs from other meta tools, or any side effects. The agent would be poorly informed when selecting this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the schema fully documents the parameter structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Get GitHub meta information' indicates it retrieves general meta data, but is vague compared to more specific sibling tools like github_meta_get_all_versions, github_meta_get_octocat, etc. It does not specify what 'meta information' includes, leaving ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other meta tools or alternatives. It does not explain the context or prerequisites, such as whether it requires authentication or when to prefer it over other endpoints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the implied destructive action. There are no annotations to provide additional context, and the description fails to mention that deletion is permanent or requires specific permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one phrase), which is not necessarily a problem, but it lacks structure and any additional sentences that could provide useful context. It is minimal but not well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should at least mention the permanent nature of deletion, required permissions, or any side effects. It fails to do so, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'org', but the description does not add any meaning beyond the schema. It only restates the parameter name without clarifying its format or required context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete an organization' clearly states the verb and resource, but it is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It adds no additional context to distinguish it from other org operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_orgs_update or github_orgs_get. There is no mention of prerequisites or that deletion is irreversible.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get', implying read-only, but does not describe side effects, permissions, or any constraints. The agent is left unaware of what to expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at four words, but it is overly terse. While brevity is valued, it sacrifices necessary detail for a minimum viable description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and the need to identify a specific role, the description fails to provide complete context. It does not explain that the role_id can be obtained from 'list_org_roles', nor does it describe the return value structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but parameter descriptions are just the parameter names ('org', 'role_id'), adding no meaning. The description does not elaborate on the format, source, or purpose of these parameters, falling short of compensating for the poor schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get an organization role' clearly states the verb and resource but is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_org_roles' which also deal with organization roles.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_org_roles' or 'assign_team_to_org_role'. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'list' which is read-like, but omits details about pagination, authentication, or response format. No mention of whether it lists all organizations or only those accessible to the user.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two words) but at the cost of completeness. It is under-specified and lacks structure; a more informative description would contain multiple sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (two optional params, no output schema), the description should at least mention that it returns a list of organizations with pagination support. The current description is insufficient for an agent to understand what exactly will be retrieved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes both parameters (since and per_page) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List organizations' provides a verb and resource, clearly indicating it returns a list of organizations. However, it lacks specificity about which organizations (e.g., public, user-accessible) and does not distinguish from other list tools on the server.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_orgs_list_members or github_organizations_list_for_user. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, return format, or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) but lacks necessary detail to fully convey the tool's functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide context on what deployment records are and how this tool fits with others, but it does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, parameter descriptions are just the param names; the description adds no meaning to 'subject_digest' or how the parameters are used.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool lists artifact deployment records, but does not specify the organizational scope or differentiate from sibling tools like list_artifact_storage_records.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or filters described.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or what happens if the invitation does not exist. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails to provide sufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks detail needed to understand the tool's behavior and context. Conciseness should not come at the expense of completeness; here it is more of a deficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and the presence of many sibling tools, the description should explain the return format, required permissions, and how this tool differs from other list tools. It does none of these, leaving the agent with insufficient context to correctly select and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain what 'invitation_id' refers to or how to obtain it. The pagination parameters are well described in the schema, so the description offers no additional value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List organization invitation teams' is basically a repetition of the tool name. It indicates a listing operation but does not clarify whether it lists teams associated with an invitation or lists invitations that are for teams. This ambiguity limits clarity; however, it does specify a verb and resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like github_orgs_list_pending_invitations or github_orgs_list_failed_invitations. The description provides no context about the tool's specific role or when it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Set' implies mutation, but there is no mention of permission requirements, irreversible changes, or side effects. The agent learns nothing beyond the trivial fact that it modifies settings.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, achieving conciseness, but it lacks structure or additional details. It is not well-organized for scanning and omits critical context, making it less useful despite its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the domain (many sibling tools for immutable releases), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what immutable releases settings are, what the request body should contain, or how this tool differs from related tools. No output schema is provided, leaving the agent uninformed about return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no information about parameters. The input schema documents `org` and `body`, but the description does not explain what the `body` object should contain (e.g., expected fields, structure). With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description fails to add value beyond the schema, and the schema's `body` description is generic.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Set' and resource 'immutable releases settings for an organization', making the basic purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like `github_orgs_set_immutable_releases_settings_repositories`, which sets per-repo settings, nor does it specify what 'settings' includes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `github_orgs_get_immutable_releases_settings` or `github_repos_enable_immutable_releases`. An AI agent receives no context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action (delete) but does not disclose consequences (e.g., irreversibility, associated data removal, or side effects). For a destructive operation, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (7 words) but lacks necessary details. While concise, it sacrifices informativeness. Structure is absent; one sentence does not provide enough value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It omits return values, error scenarios, and behavioral context. The agent cannot properly understand what to expect or how to handle failures.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema descriptions are trivial (just parameter names), providing no additional meaning. The tool description does not explain what values are valid for 'package_type' or how 'package_name' should be formatted. Despite 100% schema coverage, the lack of useful descriptions reduces the score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (package) with scope (for an organization). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_package_for_authenticated_user' and 'delete_package_for_user' by specifying organization scope. However, it lacks details about package types or additional context, so not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions), or when not to use it. The description does not help an agent decide between this and similar package deletion tools for user or version scopes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses no behavioral traits: no mention of authentication needs, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing versions), rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description is completely opaque about the tool's runtime behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that states the core function concisely. It is not verbose, but it lacks necessary details that would justify its brevity. It earns its place as a minimal statement, but does not provide structured information (e.g., separating overview from details).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the process of restoring a package version, potential errors, or return values. The user is left with no context beyond the operation name.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), but those descriptions are trivial (e.g., 'username' described as 'username'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is high, but the description does not enhance understanding of parameter purpose or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (restore) and resource (package version) for a user. It is specific enough to understand the tool's basic function, but it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'restore_package_version_for_authenticated_user' or 'restore_package_version_for_org'. However, the verb and object are explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context about prerequisites (e.g., user must exist, package must be previously deleted), and no mention of when not to use it. The description solely states the operation without any situational advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description only states 'Create a pull request' without disclosing behavioral details such as side effects (branch reference, merge conflicts), authentication needs, or response behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief, the description is under-specifying. It omits critical details such as required parameters and body fields. True conciseness would pack more information into a small space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and the large number of sibling pull-related tools, the description is woefully incomplete. The agent cannot determine basic requirements like owner, repo, or body composition from the description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% but descriptions are minimal ('owner', 'repo', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The body parameter lacks structure details (e.g., required fields like title or head).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Create a pull request' clearly states verb and resource. It is unambiguous for the core action, though it lacks differentiation from similar siblings like 'update' or 'merge'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to create vs update). No mention of prerequisites like required branches or permissions. The agent gets no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without explaining what happens to the review (e.g., reversible?, notifies participants?), or what the 'body' parameter does (e.g., provides dismissal reason). Critical information is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is efficient. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It could be slightly longer to improve clarity without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and minimal parameter documentation, the description should compensate by explaining return values, error conditions, and the effect of dismissal. It does none of these, leaving the agent uninformed about the tool's full behavior and response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema description coverage is 100%, each parameter's description is merely its name repeated (e.g., 'owner', 'repo'), adding no semantic value. The 'body' parameter's description says 'Request body (JSON object)' without specifying expected fields. The tool description adds nothing to clarify parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb-resource pair ('Dismiss a review'), but lacks specificity about what 'dismissing' entails (e.g., whether it changes review state, removes it, or requires a reason). It does not distinguish from related tools like github_pulls_delete_pending_review or github_pulls_submit_review.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_pulls_delete_pending_review, github_pulls_update_review). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as required permissions or review state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only states the action. It does not disclose required permissions, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing restrictions), rate limits, or the structure of the request body, leaving critical behavioral aspects opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (4 words), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks structure, sections, or any elaboration that would help an agent understand the tool's usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (nested body parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what team access restrictions are, how to specify them in the body, or what the result looks like, leaving an agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the descriptions are trivial ('owner', 'repo', 'branch', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no additional meaning, especially for the 'body' parameter which is a complex nested object left undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add team access restrictions' clearly indicates the action (add) and the resource type (team access restrictions), but it lacks specifics about the target (repo branch) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_team_access_restrictions' or 'remove_team_access_restrictions' beyond the verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'set_team_access_restrictions' or 'remove_team_access_restrictions'. There is no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where adding restrictions is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'add' implying mutation, but does not explain side effects (e.g., replaces existing restrictions?), required permissions, idempotency, or the structure of the body parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is too brief, consisting of a single short phrase. It sacrifices clarity and completeness for brevity, missing crucial information about the tool's operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 params, nested body, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the purpose of the body parameter, the effect of the operation, or what a successful response looks like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are trivial (parameter names and 'Request body (JSON object)'), but coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Add user access restrictions', which indicates the verb and resource but does not specify what entity the restrictions apply to (e.g., branch). Siblings like 'add_app_access_restrictions' and 'add_team_access_restrictions' imply this is for users on a protected branch, but the description alone is vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools like 'github_repos_add_team_access_restrictions' or 'github_repos_remove_user_access_restrictions'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Create' implying a mutation, but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, or what the protection actually enforces.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices informativeness for brevity, though it remains front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool’s complexity (create operation with required parameters, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the protection does, what the response looks like, or how it relates to other tools like get/delete for the same resource.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, but the descriptions are merely parameter names (owner, repo, branch). The tool description adds no additional meaning, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter semantics beyond the obvious.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it creates commit signature protection, which is a specific action and resource. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name without elaboration on what 'commit signature protection' entails, making it minimally informative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_repos_delete_commit_signature_protection or github_repos_get_commit_signature_protection. The description lacks context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info, but it fails to disclose what creating a deployment entails, its effects, or any required permissions. It is too vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely concise, the description is under-specified and lacks essential context. It sacrifices informativeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of creating a deployment, the absence of return value info, prerequisites, andparameter details makes the description grossly incomplete. It fails to equip an AI agent for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Schema descriptions are trivial (e.g., 'owner' as just 'owner'), and the 'body' parameter is undefined. The description should clarify expected body structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a deployment' clearly indicates the action and resource, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_deployment_status or create_deployment_branch_policy, which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other deployment-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when to avoid using it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., destructive nature, required permissions, side effects). The user is left unaware of the implications of calling this function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, consisting of only three words. While concise, it sacrifices necessary detail and fails to provide context that would help an agent use the tool correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should cover what happens when restrictions are deleted, but it does not. The tool's impact and prerequisites are entirely unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, but the descriptions are merely the parameter names. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete access restrictions' communicates the basic verb and resource, but it does not specify which type of access restrictions (e.g., branch protection restrictions vs. others). Given sibling tools with more specific names (e.g., add_app_access_restrictions), this vagueness could confuse an agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like remove_app_access_restrictions or remove_team_access_restrictions. No context about prerequisites or effects is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Enable immutable releases' which implies a mutation, but fails to describe side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or what exactly enabling entails. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is underspecified, so the conciseness does not compensate for missing information. It earns its place but provides no structural benefit.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description should cover what immutable releases are and the effect of enabling. It does not, leaving the agent without enough context to decide between this and related tools (e.g., disable, check, org-level settings).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While the input schema has 100% description coverage, the descriptions are just the parameter names ('owner', 'repo'), adding no meaning. The tool description does not mention parameters or provide format/context, so the agent gains no additional semantics beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Enable immutable releases' clearly states the action and resource, but it is a tautology of the tool name and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like disable_immutable_releases or check_immutable_releases. The name itself provides clarity, so the description adds minimal value.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use org-level tools like github_orgs_enable_selected_repository_immutable_releases_organization. No prerequisites or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read operation, but does not state that it is read-only, what the response contains, or any limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks substance. It does not waste words, but it also does not provide enough information to be genuinely helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool (a GET operation) and the absence of an output schema, the description should at least hint at the type of data returned. It is incomplete and leaves the agent guessing about the response format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, but each parameter description is just the parameter name (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'branch'). The tool description adds no additional meaning or guidance on how these parameters are used.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get access restrictions' is clear in its verb and resource, but it does not specify the type of access restrictions (e.g., branch protection, app access). While sibling tools like 'add_app_access_restrictions' imply it relates to branch protection, the description itself is ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_app_access_restrictions' or 'remove_app_access_restrictions'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are available, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely states 'get' without confirming whether it is a read-only operation, what data it returns, or any side effects. The description fails to convey transparency for a safe read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At only three words, the description is extremely concise but lacks structure and substance. It does not include any structured information such as bullet points or sections, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema and the tool has three required parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value structure, authentication requirements, or any prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all parameters (owner, repo, branch) with 100% description coverage, but the descriptions are minimal (just the parameter names). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, remaining at the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get branch protection' clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (branch protection), but it lacks any additional context about what branch protection entails. It is minimally viable but does not distinguish itself from related tools like update or delete branch protection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_branch_protection or get_branch. The description does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a read operation ('get') but fails to specify idempotency, permissions, or return value structure. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is concise in word count, it is under-specified. A single sentence that merely restates the tool's function does not earn its place; more context is needed to be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description should explain what the deployment object contains. It does not. For a simple retrieval tool, the description is incomplete and leaves the agent without crucial behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, but it does not contradict or mislead.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a deployment' is a clear verb+resource, but it is extremely terse and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like github_repos_list_deployments or github_repos_get_deployment_status. It adds minimal value beyond the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this tool retrieves a single deployment by ID, nor does it contrast with list or status tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, whether pagination is used (despite schema parameters per_page and page), or any authentication or rate-limit considerations. The description is too minimal to be transparent about behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two words) but at the expense of clarity and completeness. While conciseness is valued, the description underspecifies the tool's purpose and behavior, making it ineffective. It does not front-load critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not mention the scope (repository branches), pagination, filtering options, or return format. The context from the schema is insufficient to fully understand the tool's capabilities.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain how parameters like 'protected' or 'per_page' affect results, but the schema already provides adequate descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List branches' provides a verb and resource, but it is vague and does not specify which branches (e.g., for a repository). The input schema clarifies it's for a repo via owner and repo parameters, but the description fails to differentiate from similar tools like github_repos_list_branches_for_head_commit, which also list branches. The purpose is clear enough but lacks specificity and sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large set of sibling tools, such as github_repos_get_branch or github_repos_list_branches_for_head_commit, the absence of usage context or exclusions makes it hard for an agent to select the correct tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral details. It fails to disclose that this operation modifies branch protection settings, requires admin permissions, or what the implications are. The minimal description leaves the agent uninformed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, which could be seen as concise, but it lacks necessary details to be effective. It is not well-structured beyond a single phrase.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and a minimal description, the tool definition is incomplete. It misses information about prerequisites (e.g., branch protection must exist), side effects, and expected outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema descriptions are trivial (just parameter names), and the tool description adds no extra meaning. It does not explain what 'branch' refers to or that 'owner' and 'repo' are standard. With 100% schema coverage but low-quality descriptions, the tool description should have compensated but did not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove status check contexts' indicates the action but is vague: it does not clarify whether all contexts are removed or specific ones, and the input schema lacks a 'contexts' parameter. Among siblings like 'remove_status_check_protection' and 'add_status_check_contexts', the exact scope is ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'set_status_check_contexts' or 'remove_status_check_protection'. The description provides no context about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Update' implying mutation but provides no details on side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens to existing settings. The minimal description leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words, but it is overly terse. It sacrifices completeness for brevity, missing important operational details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and the complexity of the task (updating a branch protection rule), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what fields are modifiable in the body, the effect of updates, or any fallback behavior. Essential context for correct invocation is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While schema coverage is 100%, parameter descriptions in the schema are just the parameter names (owner, repo, branch). The description does not clarify what the 'body' object should contain; it only says 'Request body (JSON object)'. With no param-specific guidance in the description, agents lack the meaning needed to construct valid requests.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update pull request review protection' clearly identifies the action (update) and resource (pull request review protection), but it is generic and lacks specificity about what aspects of protection are updated, such as dismissal rules or approval requirements. The name already conveys the purpose, so the description adds minimal clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pull_request_review_protection or delete_pull_request_review_protection. There is no context for when updates are appropriate or prerequisites needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as that this is a read-only operation. It does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description adds no value beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely terse (4 words) and lacks front-loaded key information. While not verbose, it sacrifices necessary context that an agent could benefit from, such as the required parameters or optional filters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a listing tool with 8 parameters including pagination and filtering, the description is incomplete. It does not mention pagination behavior, return format, or that it requires specific repository identification (owner/repo). This leaves the agent dependent entirely on the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not explain how parameters like 'state', 'sort', or 'direction' affect results.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List repository security advisories' clearly states the action and resource but does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_org_repository_advisories' which also lists repository advisories but at an organization level. The scope (specific repo) is implied only through the required parameters (owner, repo) in the schema, not in the description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_org_repository_advisories' for organization-level listing or 'get_repository_advisory' for a single advisory. The description gives no context about prerequisites or constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral aspects like pagination, return structure, or required permissions. While the input schema hints at pagination via per_page and page, the description itself adds no transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two words long. Though concise, it is under-speaking and does not earn its place by providing useful context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., team names, IDs), but it does not. The four parameters are well-documented in the schema, but overall context is lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List teams,' which is clear but vague. It does not specify what scope of teams (e.g., organization or enterprise) and does not distinguish it from sibling team-related tools like github_teams_get_by_name or github_teams_list_child_in_org.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools for teams, such guidance is crucial but entirely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only, pagination, or rate limits. The schema includes per_page and page parameters, but these are not mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at 3 words, but under-specified. While front-loaded, it lacks necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination, or filtering options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for parameters, so the description does not need to add much. However, it adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List team members' is a clear verb+resource combination, but lacks context about which team or organization. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_repos' but does not specify the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Siblings include many other team and member operations, but no differentiation is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'get', implying a read operation, but does not mention permissions, return format, or the interdependence of 'subject_type' and 'subject_id'. The description provides minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (one sentence) but lacks necessary detail. It does not earn its place as it omits critical usage context; conciseness is not achieved at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and only three parameters, the description should explain the purpose of 'subject_type' and the hovercard context. It fails to provide enough information for an agent to confidently use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'get contextual information for a user', which is a verb+resource but lacks specificity. It does not clarify what kind of context or how it differs from other user retrieval tools like 'github_users_get_by_username'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no when-not conditions, and no examples. The description leaves the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavior. It only states the action, but does not disclose how labels are added (e.g., whether duplicates cause errors, if the runner must exist, or what the body format should be). The body parameter is vague, leaving the agent without enough info.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and thus concise, but it sacrifices completeness. It is appropriately front-loaded but too short to be helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (no annotations, no output schema, a nested body parameter, and many siblings), the description is severely incomplete. It omits essential details about parameters, behavior, and usage context, making it nearly useless for correct tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are trivial (just the parameter name). The description adds no extra meaning, especially for the 'body' parameter, which is crucial and loosely defined. The tool description does not compensate for schema brevity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (add), resource (custom labels to self-hosted runner), and scope (for an org). It distinguishes from the repo-specific sibling, but does not differentiate between 'add' and 'set' (which replaces all labels).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'set_custom_labels' or 'remove_custom_label'. This is critical given the large sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not mention what happens when the workflow is not found, whether it returns full details or a summary, or any constraints like authentication scopes. This leaves the agent guessing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (3 words). While brevity is positive, it lacks necessary detail to be useful for an agent. It is not structured with context, front-loading is irrelevant because it has no substantive content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no annotations, and no description of return value or behavior. The agent cannot determine what information is retrieved or how to use the result. For a simple getter, more context (e.g., 'Returns a workflow object with metadata') is expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, schema descriptions are just parameter names (owner, repo, workflow_id) with no added semantics. The description does not explain that workflow_id can be an ID or filename, so it adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a workflow' restates the tool name with minimal addition. It indicates the action and resource but does not differentiate from siblings like github_actions_get_workflow_run or github_actions_get_workflow_usage, leaving ambiguity about what 'workflow' means in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_actions_get_workflow_run for run details, github_actions_get_workflow_usage for usage stats). The agent receives no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only states a read operation without disclosing pagination behavior or authentication requirements; fails to convey important behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise but omits necessary context; under-specified rather than efficiently compact.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks coverage of pagination, return format, and scope; incomplete given no annotations or output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are tautological (e.g., 'owner' described as 'owner'), and the tool description adds no additional meaning, despite 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List environment secrets' clearly states the verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_org_secrets or list_repo_secrets, relying on the name for distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; lacks context for when not to use it or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether this is a read or write operation, required permissions, idempotency, or side effects. The presence of a 'body' parameter suggests a mutation, but that is not stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only six words, which is concise but underspecified. It leaves out critical details, making it less effective than a slightly longer description with more context. It is not verbose but sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With four parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what 'review' entails, what the body should contain, and what the outcome is. It covers none of these, leaving the agent without enough information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the schema descriptions are minimal (just parameter names). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. For high coverage, baseline is 3; no extra value provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action 'Review' and resource 'pending deployments for a workflow run', which gives a general idea. However, 'review' is ambiguous—it could mean list or approve/reject. The sibling 'get_pending_deployments_for_run' likely lists them, so this tool probably involves a decision (approve/reject), but the description does not clarify. The verb+resource is present but vague, lacking specific scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_actions_get_pending_deployments_for_run' or 'github_actions_approve_workflow_run'. The description does not provide any context for selection, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description carries full responsibility. It does not disclose pagination behavior (though schema has per_page/page), rate limits, event ordering, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, but it is a tautology of the tool name. Conciseness is acceptable but at the cost of valuable information. Could be structured to include more context without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so description should hint at return structure. Does not confirm what information events contain or whether pagination is supported. The username-required design vs 'authenticated user' adds confusion, leaving the tool poorly specified for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described. However, the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how 'username' relates to 'authenticated user'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is a near-verbatim repetition of the tool name ('List events for the authenticated user'). It states a verb and resource but fails to clarify what 'events' refers to (e.g., types of events, scope). The required 'username' parameter contradicts the 'authenticated user' phrasing, causing ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like list_org_events, list_repo_events, or list_public_events. No mention of prerequisites or conditions where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to indicate that the tool is read-only, returns paginated results (though schema implies it), or any rate limit or authentication implications. The minimal description leaves agents uninformed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (three words), but it lacks necessary context for proper tool selection. It saves space but at the cost of usefulness, making it a borderline case between concise and insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about return values and scope. It fails to mention that it returns a list of events, what event types are included, or any filtering capabilities.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (per_page, page) with links to pagination docs. The description adds no additional semantic meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List public events' specifies a verb and resource but is overly generic. It does not clarify that these are GitHub public events, nor does it differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'list_public_events_for_user' or 'list_public_events_for_repo_network'. An AI agent would need further context to select this tool accurately.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, authentication needs, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate. The description offers no decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are available, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state side effects (e.g., whether it creates or updates a subscription), required permissions, or what the response looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (4 words), but this brevity sacrifices clarity and completeness. While it is efficient, it fails to provide necessary context, making it less useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (nested 'body' object, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the purpose of the subscription, the structure of the request body, or the expected outcome, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage but only provides basic field names ('owner', 'repo', and 'Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no additional semantics for these parameters, especially for the nested 'body' object, which could benefit from further explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set a repository subscription' uses a clear verb+resource pattern, but it lacks specificity. It does not explain what a repository subscription means (e.g., watching, ignoring) and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_repo_subscription' or 'delete_repo_subscription'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or conditions that would help an agent decide to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only, destructive, rate limits, or data scope. The description only states the action without any behavioral context, leaving the agent uninformed about side effects or access requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 5 words, which is very concise. However, it is overly minimal and lacks essential details that would justify its brevity. Every word is earned, but the description would benefit from more content to be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what time stats are, what actor_type refers to, or how the parameters relate. A more complete description would provide context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The baseline is 3 because the schema already documents parameters thoroughly, but the description does not enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get time stats by actor', which identifies the resource (time stats) and the grouping (by actor). However, it is vague because it does not explain what 'time stats' are or how they differ from other stats tools like 'get_time_stats' or 'get_summary_stats_by_actor'. The verb is clear but the purpose lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'get_time_stats_by_user' and 'get_summary_stats_by_actor', but the description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have no basis to choose this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It only states 'Get an app', which implies a read operation but offers no details on authentication needs, error behavior, or return format. This is insufficient for informed agent decision-making.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), which benefits brevity. However, it is under-specified, sacrificing necessary detail for conciseness. The structure is flat and lacks front-loaded key information. An ideal description would be slightly longer to include essential context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description should still clarify what the returned app contains. It fails to do so, leaving agents without understanding of the output or how to use the result. The description is incomplete for a context-aware invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but the parameter description 'app_slug' is merely a label, adding no semantic value. The tool description does not explain what a slug is or how to obtain it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the minimal documentation, but no additional meaning is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get an app' states a verb and resource, which is clear but vague. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'github_apps_get_authenticated' or 'github_apps_get_installation', which also retrieve app-related data. The tool's name includes 'by_slug', but the description omits this important detail, leaving purpose ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative app retrieval tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria. An agent has no basis to choose this over similar siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, or result structure. With no annotations, the burden is on the description, but it only provides a verb-noun phrase. Key behavioral aspects like the effect of 'filter', 'status', and 'per_page' parameters are not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise but at the cost of completeness. It lacks any structured information such as examples or edge cases. While not verbose, it does not fully serve its purpose with such minimal content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 9 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not mention pagination, common use cases, or how to interpret results. The agent is left with significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the purpose of parameters like 'check_name', 'status', or 'filter' despite their descriptions being in the schema. The description does not enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (check runs) and scope (for a Git reference). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_checks_list_for_suite, which also lists check runs but for a specific suite. Without distinction, an agent may struggle to choose the correct tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusionary conditions. An agent has no hints about suitability over other list-related check tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'update' implying mutation, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or any safety implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (6 words), but this brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It starts with the verb 'Update', but could be improved with more context in the same space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is severely incomplete: no output schema, no annotations, and the input schema's body parameter is opaque. It fails to explain what 'preferences' are, what the response looks like, or any constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions for owner and repo are just the parameter names, adding no value. The body parameter is an untyped object with no property descriptions. The description does not explain what properties the body should contain beyond the schema's minimal info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it updates repository preferences for check suites, but it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like github_checks_create_suite or github_checks_rerequest_suite. The name and description are consistent, but the specific preferences are not explained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context on prerequisites or scenarios. Simply states the action without any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get' implying read-only, but does not mention side effects, permissions, or any special behavior like IP detection or devcontainer path checking.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It is front-loaded but too brief to provide meaningful context, missing key details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should explain what 'default attributes' are and how this differs from creating a codespace. It does not, leaving the agent without sufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, e.g., it does not explain how 'ref' or 'client_ip' affect the result.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get default attributes for a codespace' clearly states it retrieves attributes, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_codespaces_get_for_authenticated_user which also retrieves codespace info. The purpose is vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this pre-flight check versus actually creating a codespace or using other retrieval tools. The description lacks context for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Manage access control', which is too vague to indicate idempotency, side effects, required permissions, or what happens to existing access rules. The body parameter content and impact are left unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. It could be restructured to include the operation type and key constraints without significantly increasing length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and a complex body parameter, the description is highly inadequate. It fails to explain acceptable body formats, expected outcomes, or how the tool interacts with other codespaces access settings. The agent lacks critical information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the parameter descriptions in the schema are minimal ('org', 'Request body (JSON object)') and add no extra meaning. The tool description does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints, resulting in no added value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Manage access control for organization codespaces' identifies the general domain but uses the vague verb 'Manage' instead of specifying the exact operation (e.g., set, update, replace). Among sibling tools like 'set_codespaces_access_users', this tool's purpose is not clearly distinguished.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus related tools such as 'set_codespaces_access_users' or 'delete_codespaces_access_users'. The description does not specify prerequisites, scope, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, idempotency, or return format. For a read operation, more detail is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single sentence, but it is too minimal and lacks informative structure. It does not use the available space to provide additional useful context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about the return value or purpose (e.g., for encrypting Dependabot secrets). It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter ('org'), and the description does not add meaning beyond the schema. The schema already describes the parameter, so the description adds no value, meeting the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get an organization public key', which clearly identifies the action and resource, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like github_dependabot_get_repo_public_key or github_actions_get_org_public_key. The lack of context (e.g., Dependabot-specific purpose) limits differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about prerequisites, such as needing this key for encrypting Dependabot secrets, or when another public key tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are available, so the description must convey behavioral traits. 'Add organization assignments' is too minimal to disclose side effects (e.g., whether it creates, updates, or overwrites assignments), required permissions, or idempotency. The tool is a mutation operation, but the description fails to provide critical behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is conciseness at the cost of clarity. It is a single phrase with no structure or prioritization of information. While not verbose, it lacks the substance expected for a tool with three parameters and no annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool complexity (three parameters, nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the body parameter expects, how results are returned, or the nature of 'organization assignments' in the enterprise context. The description leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but parameter descriptions are trivial ('enterprise', 'enterprise-team', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Following the rule for high coverage, baseline is 3, though the schema descriptions themselves are minimally informative.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add organization assignments' identifies a verb and resource, but is vague. It does not clarify what 'organization assignments' means (e.g., assigning organizations to an enterprise team or vice versa) and fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'github_enterprise_team_organizations_add' which likely performs a singular add. The bulk nature implied by the name is not articulated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like singular 'add' or 'bulk remove'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The description is entirely silent on usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the update is a merge or replacement, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The minimal description fails to inform about side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At two words, the description is overly terse and under-specified. While conciseness is valued, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it less helpful than a more informative but still concise description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the body parameter should contain, how updates are applied, or what the response includes, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are minimal ('gist_id', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, format, or constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a gist' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (gist), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, or fork. However, it lacks specifics on which fields can be updated, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create, fork). No exclusions or context are given, leaving an agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, whether authentication is required, or any other side effects. The schema's recursive parameter description provides some behavior, but the tool description itself lacks transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one phrase), which is concise but at the cost of completeness. It is not appropriately sized for a tool with 4 parameters and a distinct purpose. Every sentence should add value, and this description adds minimal value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, so the description should explain what the tool returns (the tree data structure). It fails to do so. The description is incomplete given the complexity of the GitHub Git Tree API and the presence of many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a tree' is a minimal statement of the tool's action and resource. It clearly indicates the tool retrieves a tree object, but it is vague for agents unfamiliar with Git data model. It does not explicitly say it's a Git tree object, and it borders on tautological with the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus siblings like github_git_get_blob or github_git_get_commit. The description gives no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether existing assignees are replaced or appended, or if authentication is required. The description is too terse to provide behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single-sentence description is concise and without redundancy, but it is overly brief and lacks essential details, making it less effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (object parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to specify assignees, handle errors, or any constraints, leaving the agent without critical guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'body'). The description does not clarify that the body should contain an 'assignees' array or other expected structure, adding no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add assignees to an issue' clearly states the action and resource. It is specific but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_issues_add_labels' beyond the verb-resource pairing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to add vs. replace assignees, or prerequisites like required permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what happens when the dependency already exists, whether it overwrites or appends, or any required permissions. The body parameter is vaguely described as 'Request body (JSON object)' without specifying its expected structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise. However, it omits critical details and lacks front-loading of essential information. While brevity is valued, it sacrifices completeness in this case.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (4 parameters, a nested object body, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is deeply insufficient. It fails to explain the body structure, the effect of the operation, or how it integrates with other issue tools. The agent is left without enough context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but descriptions for owner, repo, and issue_number merely repeat the parameter names. The body parameter description is generic and uninformative, failing to clarify which fields are needed. The description adds no meaningful information beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action 'Add a dependency' and the context 'an issue is blocked by'. It clearly identifies the tool's purpose of adding a blocking dependency to an issue. The verb and resource are specific enough to distinguish it from most siblings, though phrasing could be more explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like adding sub-issues or listing dependencies. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the issue needing to exist or the dependency being a valid issue reference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the call is read-only, what the response format is, or any side effects. The agent is left without understanding the tool's behavior beyond its name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but overly terse. It lacks essential information and feels more like a placeholder than a useful description. It does not earn its place as it adds little beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, error), what 'assigned' means in this context, or any edge cases. The agent cannot fully understand the tool's purpose and behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions ('owner', 'repo', 'assignee'), but these are trivial. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameters (e.g., format of assignee). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema covers the basics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Check if a user can be assigned' is vague and does not specify the context (e.g., to an issue). The sibling tool 'github_issues_check_user_can_be_assigned_to_issue' suggests a different scope, but this description fails to differentiate. The input schema lacks an issue parameter, hinting it might be a general check, but the description does not clarify.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over the sibling 'github_issues_check_user_can_be_assigned_to_issue', nor does it mention prerequisites or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a write operation ('Create') but provides no detail on side effects, permissions required, or behavior if the label already exists. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, which it fails to meet.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, making it concise but too minimal to be informative. It does not waste words but also does not add value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, and the description does not mention return values or success/failure indicators. For a creation tool, the agent would benefit from knowing what the response looks like. Additionally, the tool interacts with a moderately complex API (GitHub issues), yet the description provides no context about the expected input structure for the body.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning. The 'body' parameter's schema indicates it is a JSON object with additional properties, but no guidance is given on required fields like name, color, etc.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a label' clearly states the verb and resource, but it does not specify whether it's an issue label or a repository label. Given sibling tools like 'github_issues_delete_label', it is understood to be about issue labels, but the description lacks specificity to differentiate from other label operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_issues_update_label' or 'github_issues_delete_label'. Prerequisites (e.g., required permissions, label existence) are not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'delete', which implies mutability, but provides no details about side effects, idempotency, or error handling. For a destructive operation, more transparency is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (4 words) but at the expense of essential information. While brevity is valued, this lacks necessary details for effective agent use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a destructive operation, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, error conditions, or whether the action is reversible. A delete operation typically requires more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, but the parameter descriptions are trivial (just the parameter names). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond 'owner', 'repo', and 'comment_id'. For example, 'comment_id' could be a numeric string but is not clarified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete an issue comment' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (issue comment). It is specific and unambiguous, but does not differentiate from sibling tools that may also delete comment-related entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_issues_remove_label or github_issues_delete_issue_field_value. There is no mention of prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the delete operation. No annotations are provided, so the agent gains no insight into side effects (e.g., removal from all issues), auth requirements, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at 3 words, but lacks sufficient information. It is front-loaded but not helpful. Every sentence should earn its place; this one barely does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool, the description is incomplete. It does not specify success behavior, confirm it deletes an issue label (vs. other label types), or mention that owner, repo, and name are required (though schema covers). No output schema exists, so more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter ('owner', 'repo', 'name'). The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides. It meets the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Delete a label', which indicates the action but is vague about the resource (e.g., issue label). From sibling tools like github_issues_create_label, it is likely an issue label, but the description alone does not specify. This is minimal but functional.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like removing a label from an issue (github_issues_remove_label) or updating a label. The description does not differentiate from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention destructiveness, authentication needs, or side effects (e.g., what happens if no assignees exist).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It is not front-loaded with key context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and a simple tool, the description fails to explain how assignees are specified or the return behavior. It is incomplete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but parameter descriptions are just parameter names (owner, repo, issue_number). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Remove assignees from an issue,' but lacks specificity on which assignees are removed (all? specific?). The input schema does not include an assignees parameter, leaving ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_issues_update or github_issues_add_assignees. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the update is idempotent, if it overwrites or merges the body, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two words), which is efficient but insufficient. It lacks necessary detail, so conciseness comes at the expense of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the issue update (body parameter with many possible fields), the description is severely incomplete. No output schema, no examples, no hints about which fields are updatable. The agent has no context to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but descriptions are minimal ('owner', 'repo', 'issue_number', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no extra meaning about what fields can be in the body (e.g., title, state, labels). The agent must infer the body structure from external knowledge.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update an issue' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (issue). It distinguishes from other issue-related tools like create, get, delete, and comment updates. However, it is minimal and does not elaborate on what updating entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify if it should be used for partial updates, required authentication, or if there are prior steps needed (e.g., issue must exist).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Update a milestone' without mentioning what can be updated, side effects, auth requirements, or response format. Fails to provide necessary transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (one sentence), but it restates the tool name. While not verbose, it sacrifices informativeness. Could be considered under-specified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The input schema has a complex nested body parameter with no explanation of expected fields. No output schema. The description does not mention what the tool returns or how to use it properly. Incomplete for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but parameter descriptions are just the parameter names, offering no additional meaning. The description does not explain the parameters either. Baseline 3 per rules for high coverage, but actual value added is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a milestone' restates the tool name. It specifies a verb and resource but does not distinguish from sibling tools like create_milestone or get_milestone. It is clear but lacks added context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, when to use body parameter, or any constraints. Completely lacks usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosure. It fails to state whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, the type of output (list? count?), or any side effects. The description is too minimal to inform an agent about behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, but it sacrifices critical information. While conciseness is valued, here it results in under-specification. A slightly longer description could provide necessary context without being overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the migrations domain and the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'large files' refers to, the response format, or any filtering behavior. Agents would lack sufficient context to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two required parameters (owner, repo) with generic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not improve it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get large files' indicates a retrieval operation but is vague about scope. The tool name includes 'migrations' which provides context, but it doesn't specify that these are large files within a migration or repository. It differentiates from siblings like 'get_commit_authors' but lacks precision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_import_status' or 'list_repos_for_org'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, making it hard for an agent to decide when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'Create' with no disclosure of behavioral traits. No annotations are provided, so the agent has no information about idempotency, side effects, or permissions required beyond the basic write operation implied by 'create'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. However, the brevity comes at the cost of essential details, making it functionally sparse rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and the presence of a nested body parameter, the description fails to explain what a deployment record is, what the response looks like, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a creation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but the descriptions ('org', 'Request body (JSON object)') are minimal and add no additional meaning. The tool description contributes nothing beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create an artifact deployment record' clearly states the action (create) and resource (artifact deployment record). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_orgs_create_artifact_storage_record, making it ambiguous which record type is intended.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listing or creating similar records. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, or authentication requirements. The agent is left guessing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one short sentence), but it sacrifices clarity. A slightly longer description could be more helpful without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, nested body object, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context for correct usage. The agent needs more details on pagination and body structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying that subject digests should be provided in the request body.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List attestations by bulk subject digests', which identifies the action and resource, but it is vague on what exactly 'bulk subject digests' means and does not differentiate from the similar sibling 'github_orgs_list_attestations'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., 'github_orgs_list_attestations') or any prerequisites. The description lacks context on appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get' without confirming that it is a read-only operation, returning data without side effects. It does not describe what data is returned, authentication needs, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise but too minimal; while no unnecessary words exist, it lacks substantive content that would justify a higher score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description fails to provide essential contextual information such as return value format, possible errors, or any behavioral details. It is incomplete for an agent to safely invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but parameter descriptions are essentially tautologies (e.g., 'org', 'package_type'). The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent with only parameter names to understand their purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Get' and the resource 'package version' scoped to 'organization'. It is specific enough to distinguish from user-focused variants like 'for_authenticated_user' or 'for_user', though it does not explicitly differentiate from them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other package version retrieval tools). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must handle behavioral disclosure. It states "Delete", implying a destructive, irreversible action, but offers no details on authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it is extremely brief and borders on under-specification, as it adds little beyond the tool's name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or prerequisites like authentication. The tool is a delete operation, so completeness is low.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage, but each parameter description is only the parameter name (e.g., "owner"). The tool description adds no additional meaning or context to the parameters, such as how to obtain a reaction_id.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb "Delete" and the resource "issue reaction", which directly communicates the action. It distinguishes from siblings like create or list because it specifies deletion, but does not explicitly differentiate from other delete reaction tools (e.g., for comments).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_reactions_delete_for_issue_comment or github_reactions_create_for_issue. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only says 'Get' implying read, but no details on idempotency, auth requirements, error handling, or side effects. With zero annotation coverage, the description carries full burden and fails to disclose behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but overly terse; lacks important context. Could be more informative without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so description should explain return value (e.g., a commit comment object). It also doesn't clarify how to obtain comment_id. Incomplete basic information for a simple retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but each parameter description is just the parameter name (e.g., 'owner'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get a commit comment', which is a verb+resource pair but lacks specificity about retrieving a single comment by ID. It does not differentiate from siblings like list or create commit comments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_commit_comments_for_repo or create_commit_comment. The agent must infer from name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits like read-only status or authentication requirements. It does not, leaving the agent uninformed about side effects, permissions, or rate limits associated with this GET operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not front-load key details or prioritize information; it simply restates the tool's purpose in a minimal way.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, the description should at least hint at the return value (e.g., 'returns details of the rule suite'). It does not, leaving agents unclear about what they will receive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters (org, rule_suite_id) are fully described in the input schema, achieving 100% coverage. However, the description adds no extra meaning—e.g., it does not explain what a rule suite is or how to obtain the ID. Baseline score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get an organization rule suite', which clearly indicates it retrieves a single rule suite. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_repos_get_org_rule_suites' (list) or 'github_repos_get_org_ruleset', and the wording closely mirrors the tool name, offering limited additional clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this tool is for fetching a specific rule suite by ID, while 'github_repos_get_org_rule_suites' lists all suites. Lacks context for agent decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or required permissions. The input schema includes pagination parameters (before, after, per_page) but the description does not mention them, leaving the agent uninformed about the tool's 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but overly sparse. While it avoids verbosity, it omits critical information that would be valuable for an AI agent, making it merely adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It does not explain the return value, the scope of activities, or how to use filtering parameters. The agent lacks essential context to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, meaning each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List repository activities' states the action (list) and resource (repository activities), but it is vague as it does not specify what kind of activities are included. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_activity_list_repo_events, which likely have similar functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites or constraints. The agent has no guidance on selection among many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'List commit comments' without disclosing behavior such as pagination, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if no comments exist. The description adds minimal value beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, which is front-loaded but lacks substance. It is not verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing important details. Every word earns its place, but the description is incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of comment objects with fields). It does not mention return format, error conditions, or how the parameters map to API behavior. The tool is simple but the description under-delivers.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with each parameter having a basic description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The parameter descriptions are minimal but present, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List commit comments' clearly states the action and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_repos_list_commit_comments_for_repo' which lists comments for all commits in a repo. The verb 'list' and resource 'commit comments' are specified, but the scope is ambiguous without context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The description provides no context for selection among similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as being a read operation, requiring authentication, or handling pagination. The input schema includes pagination params but the description adds no value beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two words), but it sacrifices clarity and completeness. While it is front-loaded, it does not earn its place by providing useful context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the deployment list contains, how to filter, or what the return format is.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to repeat them. The baseline is 3, and the description adds no additional meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List deployments' clearly indicates the action and resource, but it lacks specificity and does not differentiate from other list tools in the same server (e.g., list_deploy_keys, list_deployment_statuses). It should specify that it lists deployments for a repository.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include many other 'list' operations, and without context, an agent may not know when to choose this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present. The description does not disclose behavioral aspects such as whether removals are reversible, what happens to branch protection if all restrictions are removed, or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is underdescriptive. Conciseness is not sacrificed, but the structure lacks necessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what user access restrictions are, their impact, and required permissions. It fails to compensate for these missing elements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the parameters (owner, repo, branch) are self-explanatory. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Remove user access restrictions,' which is a clear verb+resource. However, it lacks specificity about which restrictions (likely branch protection user restrictions) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'remove_team_access_restrictions' or 'remove_app_access_restrictions'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., removing team or app restrictions). No context about prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'test' without explaining side effects (e.g., sends a test payload, logs activity, requires permissions) or expected outcomes (e.g., success/failure response). This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one short sentence. While brevity can be a virtue, here it sacrifices essential information. The structure is front-loaded but lacks substance, making it neither efficient nor complete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three required parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what 'test' means, what the response looks like, and any prerequisites. It provides none of this, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity. A more complete description would include the purpose, typical usage, and expected results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions that are merely the parameter names (owner, repo, hook_id). The tool description adds no additional meaning. Since the schema itself provides no extra detail beyond labels, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate—adequate but not improved by the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Test the push repository webhook' identifies a verb ('test') and a resource ('push repository webhook'), but does not clarify what 'test' entails (e.g., trigger a test event, validate configuration). It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like github_repos_ping_webhook, which likely serves a similar purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., existing webhook) or scenarios where testing is appropriate, leaving the agent without context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully explain behavior. It fails to disclose what fields can be modified (e.g., state, resolution), permission requirements, or side effects. The agent is left with minimal insight into the tool's effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it is overly brief and omits critical information. It sacrifices completeness for brevity, which does not serve the agent well.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the expected body format, updateable fields, or the response. Given that the tool performs a mutation, this lack of context makes it difficult for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While the input schema has 100% coverage, the descriptions are trivial ('owner', 'repo', 'alert_number', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The 'body' parameter lacks any explanation of its structure or allowed fields. The description adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a secret scanning alert' clearly conveys the action (update) and the resource (secret scanning alert). It is concise and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_alert' or 'list_alerts_for_repo'. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects can be updated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This forces the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, error handling, permissions required, or side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one short phrase) but omits necessary details. It is concise at the expense of completeness, making it minimally adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large number of sibling tools and no output schema or annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context about the action's effect, constraints, or legacy nature, leading to incomplete guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but parameter descriptions are trivial (just the parameter name). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add team member (Legacy)' restates the tool name without adding specific verb or resource details. It indicates adding a member but does not clarify what kind of team or member, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_or_update_membership_for_user_legacy'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about legacy status, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent choose appropriately among many team-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, but the description adds no behavioral information beyond the name. It does not clarify whether the tool returns direct children only, or if it is a paginated read operation (though pagination params are in schema).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (3 words), but it is not overly verbose. However, it is too short to be maximally helpful; a bit more context would improve it.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the hierarchical nature of GitHub teams and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the relationship between parent and child teams or the response format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List child teams' clearly indicates the verb and resource, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_teams_list_child_legacy or clarify the hierarchical context. It is minimal but adequate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to list child teams versus list all teams or use the legacy version.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update a team (Legacy)', which implies mutation but gives no details on what changes are made, side effects, authentication needs, or potential risks.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence, but it sacrifices informativeness. For a tool with a nested object parameter, more structure or examples could help without being overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the request body structure, return value, or how this tool fits into the broader team management context. The description is incomplete for effective agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, providing minimal descriptions for parameters. The tool description adds no further meaning; it does not explain the expected structure of the 'body' parameter beyond 'Request body (JSON object)'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the action 'Update' and the resource 'team' with a '(Legacy)' tag, indicating it's a legacy API. However, it lacks specifics on what aspects of the team can be updated, and the distinction from non-legacy alternatives is not explained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_teams_update_in_org. There is no context on prerequisites, such as required permissions or team membership.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, whether it supports pagination (despite schema having pagination parameters), or what the response structure is. The 'body' parameter implies a POST-like request, yet the tool is named 'list', creating ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At five words, the description is extremely concise but at the cost of clarity. It lacks structure and fails to front-load critical details. While brevity is valued, this level of conciseness underspecifies the tool for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, a nested 'body' object, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain pagination, how to construct the request body, or what the response looks like. Sibling tools exist but no differentiation is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning, such as how 'body' should be structured (e.g., an array of digests) or how 'before' and 'after' interact. It relies entirely on the schema, which is adequate but not enriched.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List attestations by bulk subject digests', which identifies the action and resource but leaves 'bulk subject digests' undefined. It vaguely differentiates from the sibling 'github_users_list_attestations' but does not clarify what makes this 'bulk' version distinct or what a 'subject digest' is.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_users_list_attestations' or 'github_users_delete_attestations_bulk'. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, scope, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action (create) without revealing side effects (e.g., what happens if variable already exists), authentication needs, rate limits, or idempotency. The 'body' parameter is described only as 'Request body (JSON object)', omitting required properties like 'name' and 'value'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (4 words) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices informativeness. While there is no waste, the brevity leaves important gaps. A slightly longer description could include key parameters or behavioral notes without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (creating a variable with an unstructured body parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the body structure (required fields, allowed values), error conditions, or relationship to other variable tools. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based solely on this description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but the descriptions are trivial: 'org' is described as 'org' and 'body' as 'Request body (JSON object)'. These add negligible semantic value. The main description does not supplement the schema by explaining expected properties or constraints for the body object. The agent would need to infer or lookup the API specification.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create an organization variable' clearly states the verb (create) and resource (organization variable). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_repo_variable' (repo-level) and 'add_selected_repo_to_org_variable' (adding access). However, it lacks context about the type of variable (GitHub Actions) and does not differentiate from 'create_org_secret' (which creates a secret, not a variable).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_repo_variable' or 'update_org_variable'. It does not mention prerequisites, required permissions, or typical usage scenarios. An explicit recommendation or exclusion would help agents decide correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Create' but doesn't mention idempotency, overwrite behavior, authentication needs, or return value. Inadequate for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (one sentence), which is concise but omits essential information. It's not verbose but fails to serve its purpose effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a complex body parameter and no output schema, the description should elaborate on input requirements and results. It provides none, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are trivial ('owner', 'repo', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The tool description adds no further meaning. The body parameter's structure is unspecified, leaving the agent without guidance on required fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'repository variable', aligning with the tool name. It differentiates from sibling tools like create_org_variable by specifying repo level, but is minimal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as create_org_variable or create_environment_variable. No context about prerequisites or situations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks any behavioral details beyond the fact that it deletes. No mention of side effects, irreversibility, required permissions, or whether associated versions are also deleted. Annotations are absent, so the description bears full burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, adequately concise but lacks important context. It is front-loaded but could be more informative without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more guidance. It does not specify what happens upon deletion, how to find the image_definition_id, or any effects on workflows.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 2 parameters with descriptions identical to names (e.g., 'org' and 'image_definition_id'). Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Delete) and the resource (a custom image from an organization). However, it does not differentiate from the similar sibling tool 'delete_custom_image_version', which might confuse an AI agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_custom_image_version'. No information about prerequisites or conditions for deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but does not. It fails to indicate that this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. The agent has no insight beyond the tool name and schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It is not overly verbose, but it could include a brief note on usage without sacrificing conciseness. The minimal length is acceptable but not exemplary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what data the job contains, how it relates to a workflow run, or how to interpret the result. The agent would likely need to guess or rely on external documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are merely the parameter names ('owner', 'repo', 'job_id'). The description adds no additional meaning, such as how to obtain a job ID or constraints on these values, leaving the agent to rely on the implicit schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a job for a workflow run', specifying a verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_jobs_for_workflow_run', which could cause confusion when the agent needs to choose between getting a single job vs listing all jobs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_jobs_for_workflow_run' or 'get_workflow_run'. The description lacks context for prerequisites or filtering, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., idempotence, read-only nature, error handling). Minimal transparency beyond the implied read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at four words, but under-specified. The brevity sacrifices helpful context for an agent. Not well-structured for decision-making.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (many siblings, 4 params, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how 'exclude_pull_requests' works, or how to interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no value beyond the parameter names and their brief schema descriptions. No extra context on parameter usage or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a workflow run' clearly indicates a verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like github_actions_get_workflow_run_attempt or github_actions_get_workflow_run_usage. The parameter 'run_id' implies specificity, but the description itself lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_workflow_runs or get_workflow_run_attempt. The description does not mention context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'review', which is ambiguous (read vs. write). The presence of a 'body' parameter implies a write operation, but no details on side effects, permissions, or return values are provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at one sentence, but it sacrifices essential details. It is front-loaded with purpose, but lacks structure or elaboration, making it minimally viable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (review action with a body parameter) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the expected response, the body structure, or prerequisites, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers parameter names but the description adds no meaning. The 'body' parameter is described as 'Request body (JSON object)' with no further structure, leaving the agent unaware of required fields or format. The description should clarify what the body should contain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reviews custom deployment protection rules for a workflow run, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'review_pending_deployments_for_run' or 'get_pending_deployments_for_run'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus similar alternatives, such as 'github_actions_get_pending_deployments_for_run' or 'github_actions_review_pending_deployments_for_run'. The single-sentence description lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, destructive nature, or idempotency. The single word 'Set' implies mutation but nothing about side effects or prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is essentially redundant with the tool name. It does not effectively use the space to provide additional value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and no annotations, the description should elaborate on the body parameter and the effect of setting the limit. It fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly, especially for a mutation operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides basic parameter names and types, but the descriptions are minimal ('org', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The tool description adds no extra meaning about expected values or structure of the body, which is critical for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Set) and the resource (cache retention limit) at the organization level, which distinguishes it from similar tools for enterprise or repository. However, it essentially repeats the tool name without adding new information, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_actions_cache_retention_limit_for_organization or set for other scopes. The agent is left to infer based on name only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool replaces labels, idempotency, required permissions, or side effects. The word 'set' implies overwriting, but it's not explicit, leaving ambiguity about behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at one sentence, but it omits critical details that make it under-informative. It is not overly long, but the length is not justified by the content. A more structured description would be beneficial.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (modifying labels with a body parameter), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the expected format of the body, the effect of setting vs adding, error conditions, or permission requirements. The absence of an output schema and annotations further increases the need for a fuller description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are trivial (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'runner_id', 'body: Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no additional meaning to these parameters, especially for 'body' which requires an object structure that is not explained. The agent would not know what to put in the body.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('set'), the resource ('custom labels'), and the scope ('for a repository'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool for orgs. However, it does not explicitly clarify that 'set' replaces all existing custom labels, which could be ambiguous compared to 'add' tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_custom_labels, remove_custom_labels), nor does it specify prerequisites, effects, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description lacks any behavioral context such as authentication requirements, scope of events (public/private), or side effects. For a read operation, this is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise. However, it is too sparse and lacks structure for multiple points.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description does not indicate return values. Pagination behavior is mentioned in parameter descriptions but no overall context. A list tool should provide more complete guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, missing the opportunity to clarify the relationship between 'authenticated user' and the 'username' parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List events received by the authenticated user', but the required 'username' parameter suggests the tool queries events for a specific user, not necessarily the authenticated user. This ambiguity reduces clarity. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_activity_list_received_public_events_for_user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many similar list tools (e.g., github_activity_list_events_for_authenticated_user, github_activity_list_public_events_for_user), the description fails to specify context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as irreversibility, permission requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description merely restates the obvious delete action without adding context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and free of extraneous content, but it is too minimal. It could include a brief note on return behavior or typical use without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, and the description does not mention what happens after deletion (e.g., success status, response format). For a simple delete operation, the description should at least indicate that the resource is removed without return content.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already defines the parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about what 'org' or 'budget_id' represent or how to obtain the budget_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not improve or clarify parameter semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a budget for an organization' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (budget for an org). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like github_billing_get_budget_org and github_billing_update_budget_org, though it does not explicitly mention the GitHub billing API context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like github_billing_get_budget_org and github_billing_update_budget_org exist, but the description does not clarify when deletion is appropriate or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data scope, pagination, authentication requirements, or rate limits. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides no transparency beyond the bare action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single sentence, but it is too terse to be informative. It lacks structure and fails to communicate key details, making it minimally adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity with 7 parameters (many optional) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the nature of the summary, how filters interact, or what the response contains, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes parameters fully. The description adds no extra meaning, but the schema provides adequate details for each parameter. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a billing usage summary for an organization. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_github_billing_usage_report_org' or 'get_github_billing_usage_summary_report_user', making it ambiguous which tool to choose for similar tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, ideal use cases, or when not to use it, which is critical given the many similar billing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, required permissions, or impact on previous check results. It merely states the action without additional context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise but overly minimal. It front-loads the action but does not earn its place as it omits essential context. A single sentence is efficient but insufficient for a complete tool definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and three required parameters, the description fails to explain return values, side effects, or typical use outcomes. It is incomplete for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions are just parameter names ('owner', 'repo', 'check_run_id'), adding no new meaning. The tool description does not compensate or clarify the parameter semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Rerequest a check run') using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like github_checks_rerequest_suite, which applies to check suites. However, it could be more explicit about the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other check-related tools (e.g., github_checks_create, github_checks_rerequest_suite). The description offers no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as destructive potential, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description only says 'Create', implying mutation but with no further detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one line), which is concise but lacks front-loading of critical information. It is not appropriately sized; it skimps on details that would help the agent use the tool effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or how the variant analysis is managed. It provides no such context, leaving the agent uninformed about the outcome of the creation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. However, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the body object's expected structure or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create a CodeQL variant analysis' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_variant_analysis' by focusing on creation, but lacks elaboration on what exactly a variant analysis is.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other code scanning create tools). There is no context for prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'update' without explaining what the update entails (e.g., partial vs full, required fields, side effects, permissions). This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is too minimal and omits essential context, making it less useful than it could be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and rich parameter descriptions, the tool's description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine the expected input format for 'body' or the response format, which are critical for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are trivial (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'alert_number'), and the 'body' parameter is described only as 'Request body (JSON object)' without detailing its structure. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the agent lacks guidance on how to construct the body.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a code scanning alert' clearly states the verb and resource, making it easy to understand the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like read-only or delete operations, which slightly reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_alert or commit_autofix). The agent is left to infer usage context without any explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral details such as whether the update is a full replace or partial, required permissions, side effects, or rate limits. The agent has no insight into the tool's behavior beyond the fact that it updates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary detail to be effective. It is front-loaded but under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and minimal description, the agent cannot fully understand the tool's usage or expected behavior. The body parameter's structure is unspecified, and no return value information is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, but the description adds no extra meaning beyond the minimal schema labels. The body parameter is described only as 'Request body (JSON object)' with no structure hints, so the agent must infer the expected format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (update) and the resource (code scanning default setup configuration). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_default_setup, though the name helps distinguish.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'Get a code of conduct', omitting details like whether it is read-only, error handling for invalid keys, rate limits, or return format. The behavioral transparency is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing essential information that would help an agent use the tool correctly. It is not overly long, but it could be more informative without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter, the description lacks completeness. It does not mention what the return value is, whether the key corresponds to a known code of conduct, or handling of missing keys. Without this context, the tool is minimally useful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'key' with description 'key', which is a tautology. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter's purpose, format, or acceptable values. Schema coverage is 100% but the descriptions are uninformative.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a code of conduct' clearly indicates the action (get) and resource (code of conduct). However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'github_codes_of_conduct_get_all_codes_of_conduct', which also retrieves codes of conduct. Adding context like 'by key' would improve differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_all_codes_of_conduct'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or suitable scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, error conditions, permission requirements, or side effects beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (7 words), but at the cost of missing essential context. While efficient, it does not earn its place by providing value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse. It leaves out key context such as what a 'user secret' is, how to obtain a repository_id, and necessary permissions, making it inadequate for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% but descriptions are tautological (parameter names only). The tool description adds no extra meaning to parameters like secret_name or repository_id, failing to explain their roles or required formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Add' and resource 'repository to a user secret', making purpose understandable. However, does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like github_codespaces_add_selected_repo_to_org_secret, relying on the tool name for distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites or context provided. Agent is left without direction on selecting this tool over others like 'set_repositories_for_secret' or 'remove_repository_for_secret'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided and description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as cost implications, required permissions, or side effects. Agent cannot assess risks or prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks essential structure. It does not break down parameters or provide context beyond the bare minimum.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of codespace creation and the presence of sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not mention repository, branch, devcontainer path, or any other inputs that are likely needed. No output schema to indicate return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'body' is described as 'Request body (JSON object)' in the schema, but the description adds nothing about its structure or required fields. The schema is very permissive (additionalProperties: {}), so the agent cannot know what to include.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (create) and resource (codespace), but does not differentiate from sibling creation tools like create_with_pr or create_with_repo. It does not explain what 'for the authenticated user' implies in terms of context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other codespace creation tools. The agent has no way to decide between creates_for_authenticated_user, create_with_pr, create_with_repo, etc.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, overwrite behavior, required permissions, or side effects. The absence of output schema further limits transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, which is concise, but it lacks important structure. It is a single sentence that fails to provide context or detail. Though not verbose, it sacrifices completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the Codespaces secrets API and the lack of output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention encryption, public key requirements, or difference from org/repo secrets. Sibling tools provide more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only tautological descriptions: 'secret_name' is described as 'secret_name', and 'body' as 'Request body (JSON object)'. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters. Schema coverage is high but the descriptions are useless.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (create or update) and the resource (a secret) with scope (for authenticated user). The name also reinforces this. However, it does not elaborate on what 'secret' means in this context, but it is still unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative secrets (org, repo) or other codespaces secret operations. The description does not mention any prerequisites or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description states a destructive action (removal) but does not disclose required permissions, side effects (e.g., impact on active codespaces), or whether the action is reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words, but it omits critical information that could be added without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about the operation's impact, return values, and prerequisites. It falls short, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'org' has a non-descriptive schema description ('org'). The tool description mentions removing 'users' but no parameter accepts user identifiers, causing confusion. The description does not clarify how users are selected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action ('Remove') and the resource ('users from Codespaces access') for an organization. However, it lacks specificity about which users are removed, as the only parameter is 'org', creating ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'set_codespaces_access_users' or 'add_codespaces_access_users'. No context on prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral details such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or side effects. For a delete operation, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence), but it lacks any structure or additional detail. While not verbose, it is too minimal to be fully effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and no annotations; the description does not explain return values, success indicators, or error scenarios. For a delete tool, basic completeness is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but parameter descriptions are minimal (just the names). The tool description adds no additional context, so the agent gains no extra understanding of parameters beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a repository secret' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (repository secret), and the tool name includes 'codespaces' to differentiate it from actions secrets. However, it does not elaborate on the scope or context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_actions_delete_repo_secret or other secret management tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, read-only nature, or authentication requirements. The description fails to fill the transparency gap left by missing annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at four words, but the brevity sacrifices necessary context. While there is no extraneous text, the description is under-informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide context about the return value and typical use case (e.g., encrypting secrets for Codespaces). It does not, leaving the agent with incomplete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (the only parameter 'org' has a description), but that description is minimal ('org'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, resulting in baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'organization public key'. The tool name itself is specific, distinguishing it from similarly named siblings like 'get_public_key_for_authenticated_user'. However, it does not elaborate on the key's purpose (e.g., encryption for secrets).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., repo-level or user-level public keys). The description provides no context for appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'List organization secrets', which implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly confirm safety, disclose required permissions, or describe pagination behavior. The parameter descriptions cover pagination, but the description itself lacks transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at two words. While it could benefit from additional context, its brevity is not a flaw. The structure is simple and front-loaded. However, it is slightly under-specified for the complexity of the tool's ecosystem.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (a list operation with well-documented parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools and does not provide behavioral context beyond the bare minimum. Annotations are missing, so the description should compensate, but it does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (org, per_page, page) with descriptions. The description adds no additional information about parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List organization secrets' clearly states the verb and resource, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name without adding new context. It does not distinguish this from siblings like github_actions_list_org_secrets or github_dependabot_list_org_secrets, which also list organization secrets. The purpose is adequate but lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the presence of multiple list_org_secrets tools for different GitHub services (Actions, Dependabot, Codespaces), the description should explicitly state that this tool lists Codespaces-specific secrets. Without such context, an agent may select the wrong tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description only says 'Remove', which implies mutation. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether removing the last repository deletes the secret), error conditions, or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—one sentence. While it avoids redundancy, it lacks any structure or additional details that would aid understanding. It is not overly verbose but is under-informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not cover return behavior, permissions, or related tools. The agent would need to infer much from the name alone, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters have trivial schema descriptions ('secret_name', 'repository_id') that add no meaning. The tool description does not clarify what constitutes a secret or repository ID in context, leaving the agent with minimal guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (Remove) and resource (selected repository from a user secret). It directly informs the agent's purpose, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like add_repository or remove_selected_repo_from_org_secret, which limits its distinctiveness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., org-level remove), nor does it mention prerequisites such as secret existence or authentication requirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose that this is a write operation that replaces the repository selection, nor does it mention authentication requirements or side effects. The description is too minimal to provide behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise but underspecified. It is front-loaded with the verb, but the brevity reduces its informativeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (setting repository access for a user secret), the description is incomplete. It lacks information about the expected body format, the effect of replacing the list, and required permissions. No output schema is provided to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the descriptions are tautological ('secret_name', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The tool description adds no extra meaning, and the schema itself provides no useful detail about the body structure. Thus, the description does not compensate for the poor schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (set) and resource (selected repositories for a user secret), but does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tools for adding or removing repositories individually. The name helps, but the description alone lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives like `add_repository_for_secret` or `remove_repository_for_secret`. The description does not explain that this tool replaces the entire list of selected repositories.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'update' without disclosing side effects (e.g., restart, configuration changes), required permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but overly brief. It omits necessary details, making it less efficient for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should explain what the endpoint returns (e.g., updated codespace object) or any error conditions. It provides no such context, leaving the agent uncertain about the outcome.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema description coverage is 100%, the descriptions are minimal ('codespace_name', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The body parameter lacks any schema or hint about allowable fields, so the description adds no meaningful guidance beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a codespace for the authenticated user' clearly indicates the action (update) and resource (codespace), distinguishing it from create/delete/start/stop codespace tools. However, it does not specify what aspects can be updated, which slightly reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other codespace tools or different update mechanisms). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring a stopped codespace, or situations where an update would be appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must compensate. It only states 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose what data is returned, pagination, authentication needs, or any side effects. This is insufficient for behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at 4 words, with no wasted text. However, it sacrifices detail for brevity. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' but lacks structured information like time frame or metric types.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of Copilot metrics and the existence of multiple similar tools, the description is incomplete. There is no output schema, and the description does not clarify what metrics are included (e.g., active users, suggestions, acceptance rates) or the time period (all-time vs. a specific range). This leaves the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (1 parameter 'org'), but the schema description is just 'org', adding no extra meaning. The tool description does not elaborate on the parameter (e.g., the org name or slug format). Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get Copilot organization usage metrics', which indicates the general purpose of retrieving usage metrics for an organization. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_copilot_copilot_metrics_for_organization or github_copilot_copilot_organization_one_day_usage_metrics, leaving ambiguity about the specific scope or time range.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple Copilot metric tools (e.g., one-day versions, enterprise, users), but the description offers no context for selection, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation (adding a repo) but does not mention that the secret must already exist, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure and detail. It serves as a basic summary but does not front-load key information or organize content effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and three required parameters, the description is too minimal to be contextually complete. It omits important details such as return values, prerequisites, and behavioral constraints, leaving an agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema description coverage is 100%, the descriptions are tautological (just parameter names). The tool description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, failing to clarify the format of 'repository_id' (e.g., numeric ID vs name) or other constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (add selected repository) and resource (organization secret), matching the verb+resource pattern. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from similar tools like 'github_actions_add_selected_repo_to_org_secret' or 'github_codespaces_add_selected_repo_to_org_secret', relying on the tool name to convey the Dependabot context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as 'github_dependabot_set_selected_repos_for_org_secret' (bulk update) or 'github_dependabot_remove_selected_repo_from_org_secret'. Prerequisites (e.g., secret must exist) are also omitted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what happens when the secret exists, or any required permissions. Without annotations, more behavioral context is expected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficient but arguably too minimal for a create/update operation with a complex body parameter. It could include more detail without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the input (3 parameters, one nested JSON object) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context. Key details about secret encryption, public key requirements, and body structure are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which itself has poor descriptions (just property names). For the body parameter, which is a JSON object, the description does not clarify required fields like key_id or encrypted_value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create or update') and the resource ('organization secret'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_or_update_repo_secret. The resource is clear from the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., Repo secret creation or Actions secret creation). The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Get', implying a read operation. It fails to disclose permissions needed, error behavior (e.g., not found), or response format. Since annotations are absent, the description should carry the full burden of behavioral context but does not.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It is not structured, but it avoids verbosity. However, conciseness without completeness is a trade-off that reduces effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return value (e.g., membership status, role) or error conditions. Without output schema, the description should cover what the tool returns, which it fails to do.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema descriptions are merely the parameter names ('enterprise', 'enterprise-team', 'username') with no added meaning. The tool description does not clarify what these parameters represent (e.g., org slug, team slug, GitHub username). Schema coverage is 100% but adds no value beyond stating existence.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get enterprise team membership' uses a clear verb and resource, indicating a retrieval operation. However, it does not specify that it retrieves membership for a specific user, which is implied by the username parameter but not stated. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list' (which returns all memberships) but lacks explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list', 'add', or 'remove'. The description does not state that it is for checking a single user's membership status or contrast with other membership operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Remove team membership' without indicating destructiveness, auth requirements, or side effects. The name implies mutation, but no further details are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one phrase), which is concise but at the expense of clarity. It is front-loaded but lacks necessary detail to be useful. It could be expanded while remaining terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is very incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does in detail, what parameters are for, or any constraints or side effects. More contextual information is needed for correct use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has three required parameters with descriptions that are just the parameter names ('enterprise', 'enterprise-team', 'username'). The description does not add any meaning or context beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100% but descriptions are tautological and unhelpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove team membership' clearly states the action (remove) and the resource (team membership). The tool name includes 'enterprise_team_memberships', so the scope is implied. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add' or 'bulk_remove' but lacks specificity about what is being removed (a user's membership in an enterprise team).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bulk removal or adding memberships. Sibling tools exist but are not mentioned. The description does not provide context for appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fails to disclose key behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, idempotency, or what happens on conflicts. It does not mention the output (SHA) or that the body parameter must follow specific encoding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence. It could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, but it is not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It omits crucial context about return values, the role of blobs in Git objects, and the structure of the request body.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with basic descriptions for owner, repo, and body. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a blob' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from the sibling 'github_git_get_blob'. However, it is vague about what a blob represents in GitHub's Git Data API, lacking specificity about its role as raw file content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_git_create_tree or github_git_create_commit, nor does it indicate that blobs are typically part of a tree or commit workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should explain behavior. It only says 'set' without detailing what the restrictions are, side effects, permissions, or idempotency. The input schema is vague, worsening the gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded but too brief to be fully useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool performing a mutation on public repositories, the description lacks details about restrictions types, input requirements, and output. Without annotations or output schema, the agent has insufficient context to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning to the parameter 'body' beyond what the schema provides. The schema's description is generic ('Request body (JSON object)'), and the description fails to clarify expected structure or values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'interaction restrictions for your public repositories', matching the tool name and distinguishing it from sibling tools like get or remove restrictions for different scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like set_restrictions_for_org or get/remove variants. The description lacks context for choosing this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only indicates that the tool performs a set (write) operation but does not disclose whether it replaces existing restrictions, merges with them, or requires specific permissions. No side effects or error conditions are mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise but lacks essential details. It saves space but sacrifices completeness, resulting in a borderline acceptable but not optimal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and the complexity of the body parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what interaction restrictions are, how to construct the body, or what the tool returns. The agent would have limited information to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage but provides minimal descriptions: 'owner', 'repo', and 'body' (described as 'Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no further meaning. The complex body parameter has no details on its expected structure or allowed values, leaving the agent underinformed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set', the resource 'interaction restrictions', and the scope 'for a repository'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get' or 'remove' restrictions for the same scope. However, it doesn't specify what interaction restrictions entail (e.g., limited or existing users), which would make it even clearer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_restrictions_for_repo or remove_restrictions_for_repo. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions that warrant setting restrictions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Add', implying mutation, but does not describe whether values are appended or replaced, required permissions, error handling, or idempotency. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no waste. However, it lacks structure and does not prioritize key information. For a tool with a complex body parameter, more detail would be beneficial.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of a nested body parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the body format, constraints, or what the tool returns, failing to equip the agent for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but descriptions are redundant parameter names. The body parameter is an unstructured JSON object with no details about expected fields. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, leaving the body's structure ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add issue field values to an issue' clearly specifies the action (add) and resource (issue field values). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'set' and 'list' versions. However, it does not clarify what constitutes 'field values' (e.g., custom fields, labels), leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_issues_set_issue_field_values'. The description lacks context for selecting the appropriate tool or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and a terse description, the tool fails to disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, return format, or side effects. The description provides no value beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is excessively short—three words—but fails to convey essential details. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complex input schema (nested object body), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It lacks information about required body fields, success/error behavior, and usage examples.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'Request body'), and the body parameter has no schema detail. The description adds no extra meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create an issue' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from other issue operations like 'get' or 'update'. Though minimal, it is sufficient to identify the tool's basic purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_issues_update or github_issues_list. Users are left to infer context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It does not mention effects like whether multiple pins are allowed, if it replaces existing pins, or any permission requirements. The agent is left without critical context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it is too brief and sacrifices necessary explanatory context. While there is no wasted text, the terse style undermines completeness, placing it at an average score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about the operation's effects and constraints. It does not mention that the comment must belong to an issue in the specified repo, or that only one comment can be pinned per issue. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for its three parameters (owner, repo, comment_id), so the schema already provides the meaning. The description adds no further parameter information. This meets the baseline for a tool with full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Pin an issue comment' is a clear verb+resource combination. It immediately conveys the action (pin) and the target (issue comment), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it lacks context about what pinning means in GitHub (e.g., highlighting it), which would improve clarity further.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is a sibling tool 'github_issues_unpin_comment', but no reference to it. The description does not specify scenarios or prerequisites, such as needing write access to the repo.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. However, it only states 'Remove sub-issue' without revealing side effects (e.g., what happens to the sub-issue relationship, permissions required, or whether the sub-issue is deleted or just unlinked). This lack of detail leaves the agent unaware of the operation's implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at two words, which is efficient but too brief to provide sufficient context. While it avoids verbosity, it sacrifices necessary detail. It is a minimal viable description but not well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 required parameters) and the presence of sibling tools like 'add_sub_issue' and 'list_sub_issues', the description should explain that 'issue_number' likely refers to the parent issue. Without this context, the agent may misuse the tool. The description is incomplete for effective agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters but only provides trivial descriptions ('owner', 'repo', 'issue_number'). The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema. Since the baseline is 3 for high coverage, the lack of added semantic value reduces the score to 2.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove sub-issue' clearly states the action (remove) and the resource (sub-issue), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'remove_dependency_blocked_by' or 'remove_label', which also involve removal of relationships.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., issue must have sub-issues) or when to use 'remove_dependency_blocked_by' instead. The agent receives no contextual cues for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or return value characteristics. For a tool with zero parameters, the lack of behavioral context is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single four-word phrase. While concise, it is under-specified and does not provide enough information to be useful. It leans toward being too terse rather than effectively concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and a single-sentence description, the tool feels incomplete. It does not explain what the root returns, its typical use case, or any constraints. More context is needed for a tool that appears to be a general metadata endpoint.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters (0 params, 100% schema coverage). According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as no additional parameter description is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'GitHub API Root' indicates that the tool returns the root endpoint of the GitHub API. It does not explicitly state the verb (e.g., 'get'), but it clarifies the resource. It does not differentiate from sibling tools, but the purpose is somewhat clear given the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The description does not mention context, alternatives, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and resource, omitting details like pagination (implied by params), response structure, or side effects. This is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (2 words), but it omits essential context such as the fact that it returns a paginated list. This is under-specification, not effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and only a minimal description, the tool is inadequately specified. The agent cannot infer what the response contains, how to handle pagination, or any constraints. This is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (both per_page and page are described in the schema). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List user migrations' clearly states the resource (user migrations) and action (list). It is distinguishable from list-for-org siblings but does not explicitly differentiate them. The purpose is clear but minimal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, when not to, or any alternatives. The description lacks contextual usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only says 'Start a user migration' without disclosing whether the operation is asynchronous, what side effects occur, or what authentication is needed. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (four words), but it sacrifices completeness for brevity. Every sentence should earn its place; here, the single sentence is too vague to be fully valuable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complex domain (migrations) and lack of an output schema, the description fails to explain what a user migration is, how to specify it via the body parameter, or what the tool returns. The minimal description leaves the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the 'body' parameter, but the tool description adds no extra meaning—it doesn't specify required fields or expected structure. With baseline 3 due to coverage, the lack of additional context reduces the score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('start') and resource ('user migration'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'github_migrations_start_for_org' which targets org migrations. However, it does not explain what a user migration entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listing migrations or canceling imports. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for invoking this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., whether existing inclusions are overwritten), required permissions, or idempotency. Essential behavioral traits are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks crucial detail. It is not overly verbose, but it omits information that is essential for correct use, making it minimally adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of OIDC custom property inclusions and the nested body parameter, the description is woefully incomplete. No return value information is provided (no output schema), and the body's structure is unexplained. The agent has insufficient context to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema description coverage is 100%, both parameter descriptions are trivial ('org' and 'Request body (JSON object)') and add no meaningful semantics. The tool description does not elaborate on the structure or purpose of the body, leaving the agent without guidance for constructing valid input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create'), the resource ('OIDC custom property inclusion'), and the scope ('for an organization'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like those for enterprise or delete/list actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., updating the OIDC custom sub template, or using the enterprise-level counterpart). The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only states it 'sets' a template, implying a write operation, but omits side effects, permissions, or whether it overwrites/creates. Insufficient for understanding behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words, but lacks enough information to be useful. Conciseness is acceptable but at the expense of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so description should explain return values or confirmation. It does not. With a nested object parameter, more detail is needed. Missing key behavioral and structural context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are minimal ('org', 'Request body (JSON object)'). Description adds no explanation of the body's structure or required fields. Even though schema coverage is 100%, the descriptions are tautological.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses verb 'Set' and specifies resource: 'customization template for an OIDC subject claim for an organization'. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'get' or 'create'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_oidc_custom_sub_template, create_oidc_custom_property_inclusion). Lacks prerequisites or usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'create or update' but omits behavioral details such as what happens if a property already exists (update semantics), required permissions, side effects (e.g., overwriting values), or how the body parameter influences the outcome. With no annotations, this is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence, but it is too brief to convey necessary detail. While concise, it sacrifices clarity and completeness, resulting in an under-informative definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (modifying an organization-level custom property definition), the absence of annotations, output schema, and detailed parameter guidance leaves major gaps. The description fails to explain what a custom property definition is, what fields the body accepts, or the impact of the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the input schema covers 100% of parameters, the descriptions are tautological ('org', 'custom_property_name', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no additional meaning, such as expected structure for the body, allowed values, or relationship between parameters. The schema coverage baseline of 3 is reduced due to inadequate parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (create or update) and resource (custom property for an organization). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_or_update_organization_definitions' (plural) or 'get_organization_definition', leaving ambiguity about whether this handles a single definition vs. bulk operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get, delete, or bulk operations). The description lacks any conditional context or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Remove', implying mutation but lacks details on side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is too brief, lacking necessary details for a complete tool definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits return behavior, error scenarios, and any prerequisites, leaving the agent with minimal context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, but descriptions are merely param names (org, custom_property_name). The description does not clarify valid values, format, or constraints beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (remove) and the resource (a custom property for an organization). It distinguishes from sibling tools that create/update/get, but does not explicitly mention that it deletes the definition specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_or_update or get. No context on prerequisites or constraints for deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Delete', implying a destructive, irreversible action, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or what happens to associated data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (4 words) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices necessary detail. Every word earns its place, but the overall structure is too sparse to be helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema. The tool deletes organization-level attestations, but the description does not explain what attestations are, the scope (org-level), or the effect. Given the complexity and sibling tools, it is under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers both parameters with trivial descriptions (just the parameter name). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it merely echoes 'by ID' for attestation_id. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, but value added is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states action ('Delete attestations') and key parameter ('by ID'), matching the function name. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'github_orgs_delete_attestations_bulk' or 'github_orgs_delete_attestations_by_subject_digest', which have overlapping purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools suggest different deletion methods (bulk, by subject digest), but the description provides no context for choosing among them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention if the change affects all current and future repos, whether it's reversible, or any side effects. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure. It does not front-load critical information or organize details. Acceptable but could be improved.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (org-wide security product toggle), lacking output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain scope, result, or required permissions, leaving gaps for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Though schema coverage is 100%, the descriptions are just the parameter names ('org', 'security_product', 'enablement', 'Request body'). The tool description adds no additional meaning to these parameters, leaving the agent to guess valid values and structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Enable or disable a security feature for an organization' clearly states the action (enable/disable) and the scope (organization-level security feature), but it omits the 'all org repos' scope implied by the name. It distinguishes from sibling tools generally, but could be more specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., per-repo enabling tools). No prerequisites, permission requirements, or conditions are mentioned. The description provides no selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or constraints. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 10 words, which is concise. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It is front-loaded with the key action but incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation, nested body object), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the body structure, possible membership roles, or the response format. Output schema is absent, so the description should compensate but does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While the input schema has 100% coverage (both parameters have descriptions), the descriptions are minimal ('org' and 'Request body (JSON object)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning about what fields the body should contain or what membership states are valid. The agent would lack critical information to construct correct requests.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (update), the resource (organization membership), and the subject (authenticated user). It effectively communicates the core purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'set_membership_for_user'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context. The description lacks any usage direction that helps the agent decide to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Update the access', implying mutation but not detailing behavioral traits such as idempotency, required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The agent has insufficient information about what happens during the update.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise, but it lacks structure such as bullet points or examples. While it is short, it does not earn its place by being highly informative; it is merely minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only two parameters but no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, error states, or example usage. It falls short of being complete for an update operation with a flexible request body.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% but the descriptions are minimal: 'org' and 'Request body (JSON object)'. The tool description adds no further meaning about the body's expected structure or fields. Since the body schema is an open object with additionalProperties, the agent needs more guidance on permissible keys and values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'access to organization resources via fine-grained personal access tokens'. It conveys that this tool modifies PAT-related permissions. However, it does not distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'github_orgs_update_pat_access', which may handle a single token, but the description lacks specificity about what 'accesses' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_orgs_list_pat_grants' or 'github_orgs_review_pat_grant_request'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description omits behavioral traits such as permissions required, error handling, idempotency, or whether the update is partial or full replacement. The agent lacks critical information for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only one sentence, which is too brief for a mutation tool. It under-specifies, lacking essential details that would make the description valuable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of updating a webhook with a free-form body and no output schema or annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, allowed body fields, or behavioral effects, making it difficult for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with basic descriptions (org, hook_id, body). However, the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, and the 'body' parameter is an unconstrained JSON object without specification of allowed properties, leaving the agent uncertain about valid content.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update an organization webhook' clearly identifies the verb (update) and resource (organization webhook). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, and get, but does not differentiate from the similar 'github_orgs_update_webhook_config_for_org', which might cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_orgs_update_webhook_config_for_org' or prerequisites for updating a webhook.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action (delete) without mentioning irreversibility, required permissions, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for an annotation-less destructive tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action. However, it is too short to convey necessary details, suggesting under-specification rather than conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a deletion tool with 4 required parameters and 100+ siblings, the description lacks essential context: valid package types, version ID format, permissions needed, and relationship to other package tools. It is not complete enough for correct tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are tautological (just repeating the param names). The tool description adds no explanation of the parameters' meanings, valid values (e.g., package_type allowed values), or format requirements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'package version for an organization', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like delete_package_version_for_user or delete_package_for_org, which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_package_version_for_user), nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits (e.g., destructive, irreversible, required permissions). Leaves agent guessing about side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single concise sentence, but lacks structure or supplementary details that could aid understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and lacking behavioral details, the description is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool. Does not cover return values, errors, or prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but descriptions are minimal (just parameter names). Tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, failing to clarify parameter usage or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Delete package version for a user' with specific verb and resource, distinguishing from similar delete tools for authenticated user or package-level deletion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like delete_package_version_for_authenticated_user or delete_package_for_user. Lacks context on prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the fact it retrieves a package. It fails to mention authentication requirements, error handling, or the nature of the return value. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden, which it does not meet.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (4 words), which is efficient but lacks structure. It does not list parameters or provide usage context. While not verbose, it is minimally adequate for a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description should clarify what information is returned. It does not, leaving the agent to guess the response format. The simplicity of the tool partly excuses this, but completeness is lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides parameter names and types, but descriptions are trivial (just the parameter names). The tool description adds no meaning for parameters like 'package_type' (valid values) or 'package_name' (format). Schema coverage is 100% but with no added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('a package for a user'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_package_for_authenticated_user' by specifying 'for a user'. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes a package or the context of use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_package_for_org, list_packages). No prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions are mentioned. The description is purely declarative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'restore' without explaining side effects (e.g., overwriting existing version, permission requirements, or reversibility). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise but overly terse. It front-loads the action but lacks structure and fails to elaborate on important details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and performs a restoration (mutation), the description is highly incomplete. It omits prerequisites, effects, return value, and any caveats.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage but each parameter description is merely its name. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but provides no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action 'restore a package version' and specifies scope 'for the authenticated user', matching the tool name. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like restore_package_version_for_org or restore_package_version_for_user, which have similar descriptions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative restore tools for organizations or users. It lacks exclusions, prerequisites, or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, side effects, or return behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) but lacks sufficient detail to be informative. It is not overly verbose but could be more substantive.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (3 parameters, mutation, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the 'body' should contain, what the response looks like, or any prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the schema descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'org', 'project_number', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The tool description adds no additional context or constraints for the parameters, especially the 'body' object which lacks defined properties.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (add) and resource (item to organization owned project). It distinguishes from sibling 'add_item_for_user' by specifying 'organization owned'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_projects_add_item_for_user' or other project-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states 'list' without indicating whether this is a read-only operation, what side effects exist, or any restrictions. The pagination behavior implied by schema parameters is not mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (4 words), avoiding any fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it might be overly concise, lacking detail that could be included without significant verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters including complex pagination cursors, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what constitutes a 'project', what fields are returned, or any usage context. The description fails to provide a complete understanding of the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning or context for parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It does not compensate for any missing parameter info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List projects for user' clearly states the action and resource, but it does not distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like github_projects_list_for_org or github_projects_get_for_user. It lacks specificity about the type of GitHub projects (classic vs. new Projects) and scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about when it is appropriate. For example, it does not indicate that this lists only the user's own projects or requires authentication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Create a reply', omitting side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or that this is a mutation. It does not explain what a reply entails (e.g., creates a new comment in the thread). The agent learns nothing about behavior beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), which is appropriate for a simple action, but it lacks critical information. It is front-loaded but under-specified. Compared to a well-rounded description, it sacrifices content for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description must be self-contained. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or the relationship between parameters (e.g., that 'comment_id' must refer to an existing review comment on the specified pull request). The description is far too sparse for a mutation tool with five parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the schema descriptions are tautological (e.g., 'owner' described as 'owner'). The tool description adds no additional meaning—it does not explain what the 'body' parameter should contain or how 'comment_id' relates to the reply. Without compensating detail, the description fails to enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a reply for a review comment' uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('reply for a review comment'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_review_comment' (which creates a top-level comment) and 'get_review_comment'. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. For example, it does not clarify that this tool should only be used when a review comment already exists (comment_id is required), nor does it differentiate from 'update_review_comment'. The user must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies mutation but does not explain that creating a review can be pending or submitted depending on the body content, nor that it requires write permissions. The tool modifies pull request state, which is not mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is too brief to provide necessary details. It sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the input schema (nested `body` object) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values (no output schema) or how to correctly structure the body parameter. An agent would likely struggle to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage but only minimal descriptions (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The tool description adds no further meaning, especially for the `body` parameter which is a complex object. The agent is left guessing what properties the body should contain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a review for a pull request' clearly states the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like `github_pulls_submit_review` or `github_pulls_create_review_comment`, which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `github_pulls_submit_review` or `github_pulls_create_review_comment`. The description lacks context about prerequisites or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action. It fails to disclose that merging is a destructive write operation requiring write permissions, that it may fail due to conflicts, or the resulting merge type (commit, squash, rebase).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short (4 words) but omits critical information. Conciseness is not achieved at the expense of completeness; structure is lacking.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex mutation tool like merging a pull request, the description is severely incomplete. No details on permissions, conflict handling, merge strategies, or return values. Output schema absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but parameter descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'owner', 'repo'). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Merge a pull request' uses a specific verb ('Merge') and resource ('pull request'), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like github_pulls_create, github_pulls_get, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., pull request must be open, no merge conflicts), or alternatives. The description provides no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action without explaining effects (e.g., whether the review body is replaced, if the review state changes, or if the review must be in a pending state). Critical details like idempotency or side effects are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is overly terse. While concise, it sacrifices needed detail, making it less useful for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide a more complete picture of the tool's behavior, return value, and usage context. It fails to do so, offering insufficient information for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the schema descriptions are merely property names (e.g., 'owner', 'repo'), lacking any semantic depth. The description does not clarify the purpose of the 'body' object parameter or the required identifiers, adding no meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a review for a pull request' clearly indicates the verb (update) and resource (review for a pull request). Among sibling tools like submit, dismiss, or update review comment, 'update' is distinct, but the description does not specify what aspects of the review can be updated (e.g., body, state), leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_pulls_submit_review', 'github_pulls_dismiss_review', or 'github_pulls_update_review_comment'. The agent receives no context about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, idempotency, or side effects (e.g., whether duplicate reactions are allowed).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary information, but it is too brief to provide adequate context. It achieves conciseness at the expense of clarity and completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description fails to explain the tool's response, preconditions (e.g., comment existence), or any side effects. For a creation tool, this is insufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While schema coverage is 100%, each parameter description is merely the parameter name (e.g., 'owner', 'repo') or generic ('Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no additional meaning, failing to clarify the required structure of the 'body' object (e.g., specific reaction content).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (create) and resource (reaction for a pull request review comment), distinguishing it from other reaction tools like github_reactions_create_for_commit_comment. However, it does not elaborate on what a reaction entails (e.g., emoji types).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_reactions_create_for_issue). The description lacks explicit context for appropriate usage scenarios or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, idempotency, or what happens if a duplicate reaction is created. The minimal description fails to provide needed transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise but overly brief. It lacks structure and does not provide any formatting or breakdown of information. While short, it is not as helpful as a more structured description would be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of four parameters and a nested object, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the 'body' field, the available reaction types, or the return value (no output schema). The description should cover these aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, but the descriptions are merely labels (e.g., 'owner', 'repo'). The description adds no extra meaning about the 'body' parameter, which is a JSON object with no specified structure. The description should clarify the expected content (e.g., reaction type).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create reaction for a release' clearly states the verb and resource, but lacks specificity about the type of reaction. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'release', but no further differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus other reaction creation tools for different resources (e.g., issue, commit comment).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as that this is a write operation modifying branch protection rules, any destructive consequences, or required permissions. Without annotations, the description provides no behavioral context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is minimal and front-loaded, with no redundancy. However, conciseness should not come at the expense of informativeness; the single phrase lacks sufficient detail for a tool with a nested parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and the complexity of the 'body' parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what status check contexts are, how to structure the body, or the tool's effect on branch protection. An output schema could help but is absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions in the schema are tautological (e.g., 'owner' described as 'owner'). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, especially the opaque 'body' field. It fails to explain what the body should contain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add status check contexts' clearly states the verb and resource, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_status_check_contexts' or 'remove_status_check_contexts'. The lack of specificity on whether it appends or replaces could confuse agents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., existing branch protection rules) or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond creation, such as whether the ruleset takes effect immediately, required permissions, or side effects. Since annotations are missing, the description should compensate but does not.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It could be improved by adding a brief breakdown of the body or additional context without becoming verbose. Currently it meets minimal standards.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (creating an org ruleset with a generic object body) and the presence of many related tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a ruleset is, how to construct the body, or any implications. The output schema is absent, so the agent has no idea what the response contains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but the description adds no value beyond the schema. The 'org' parameter is trivial; 'body' is described generically as 'Request body (JSON object)' without hinting at the expected structure or required keys. The agent gets no guidance on how to populate the body.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action (create) and resource (organization repository ruleset), but it is slightly ambiguous whether it applies to the entire organization or a single repository. The tool name clarifies it is org-wide, but the description could be more precise. It distinguishes from siblings that get, update, or delete rulesets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_org_ruleset or delete_org_ruleset. No prerequisites or context cues are provided. The agent would have to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'create or update' but does not disclose how it determines which action to perform, whether it overwrites without confirmation, or the need for a commit message. Critical behavioral details are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, very concise. However, it sacrifices essential information. It could be restructured to include key details without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool that creates or updates files, the description is too minimal. It omits details about required body fields, encoding, commit messages, and return values. Given no output schema, the agent has no way to understand what will be returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are just field names; the description adds no meaning. The 'body' parameter is described as 'Request body (JSON object)' but does not specify required subfields like content, encoding, or message. An agent cannot determine what to pass in the body.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create or update file contents' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_file or get_content, though it could be more specific about the difference between create and update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., branch existence), when to prefer create vs update, or any limitations. The description is insufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. The single sentence does not mention side effects (e.g., triggering a build), required permissions, or whether the operation is destructive. The agent is left uninformed about critical behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise but sacrifices necessary detail. It is not optimally structured to front-load critical information, and the brevity reduces clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (creation operation with a freeform body parameter and no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide sufficient context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but descriptions are minimal ('owner', 'repo', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what the body should contain or how parameters relate to the operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a GitHub Pages deployment' uses a verb+resource format, clearly stating the tool's action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_repos_create_pages_site or github_repos_get_pages_deployment, leaving ambiguity about what a 'deployment' specifically entails versus a 'site'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where it should not be used. The agent receives no contextual cues for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely states the action without explaining prerequisites, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing Pages setup), required permissions, or the format of the response. Critical details are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and to the point, which is concise, but it is under-specified for the tool's complexity. It is front-loaded but sacrifices necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters including a complex nested body object and no output schema, the description is far too brief. It does not explain the body's required structure, the effect of the action, or what the agent should expect as a result. The description is incomplete for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema description coverage is 100%, the schema descriptions are minimal (just parameter names like 'owner' and 'Request body'). The description adds no additional meaning, failing to clarify what the body object should contain (e.g., source branch, path). This leaves parameters ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description succinctly states the action 'Create a GitHub Pages site', which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. However, among siblings like 'get_pages', 'create_pages_deployment', and 'delete_pages_site', it does not differentiate itself, so it's not a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_pages_deployment' or 'update_information_about_pages_site'. The description lacks any context for choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes a destructive operation but omits details like required permissions, error handling (e.g., what happens if protection does not exist), and whether all protection rules are removed. The minimal description fails to provide necessary context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (three words), but it lacks structure and additional context. While brevity is valued, the description could benefit from a slightly longer explanation to improve utility. It is not overly verbose, but it is under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with three required parameters), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the effect (e.g., removes all branch protection rules), success/error responses, or prerequisites. With no output schema, the description should provide more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While the schema has 100% coverage, the parameter descriptions are tautological (e.g., 'owner' described as 'owner'). The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameters, such as format (e.g., repository full name) or constraints. The agent must rely solely on parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete branch protection' clearly states the verb and resource. The tool name distinguishes it from siblings like 'github_repos_get_branch_protection' and 'github_repos_delete_admin_branch_protection', but the description does not explicitly differentiate between regular and admin branch protection. However, the naming is sufficiently distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, such as prerequisites (e.g., branch protection must exist) or alternatives (e.g., use 'update_branch_protection' to modify rules instead). This leaves the agent uncertain about invocation context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, required permissions, or that it permanently removes protection. The destructive nature is implied but not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (3 words), which is efficient but may be too brief given the lack of supporting annotations. It is appropriately sized for a simple deletion action but lacks necessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description fails to provide complete context for a deletion tool. It does not explain what 'pull request review protection' is, the branch scope, or the irreversible nature of the action. Given no output schema or annotations, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters (owner, repo, branch) are documented in the schema with only their names as descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning or context about these parameters, such as their roles or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'pull request review protection'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like update and get. However, it lacks any elaborative context that would further aid understanding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like updating or getting protection settings, nor does it mention prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not mention any behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or the structure of the response. For a read-only operation, basic behavioral context (e.g., 'returns branch details') is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence. It front-loads the purpose without extraneous words. While it may be too sparse for a complex tool, for a simple get operation it is appropriately sized and earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not state what the tool returns (e.g., branch object with name, commit sha, etc.) or any constraints. It only restates the function name, leaving an agent with minimal context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions that are merely parameter names (owner, repo, branch). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Per guidelines, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a branch' clearly states the verb and resource, fulfilling basic purpose identification. However, it does not differentiate this tool from many sibling tools that also perform 'get' operations (e.g., github_repos_get_commit, github_repos_get_content). The description is minimal but not misleading.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other branch-related tools or different retrieval methods. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context provided to help an agent decide to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description is minimal. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, or what the response contains. The agent has no insight beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and very concise, but it lacks structure and is too brief to be informative. It earns its place but could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, plus 4 required parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, usage patterns, or how the parameters relate, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While schema description coverage is 100%, the descriptions are merely the parameter names (e.g., 'owner', 'repo'), providing no added semantic meaning. The tool description does not elaborate on parameter usage or relationships.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a deployment branch policy' clearly specifies the action (Get) and resource (deployment branch policy), which is sufficient to distinguish from sibling tools like create, update, delete, and list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or differentiation from list or other get operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only restates the name. It does not disclose read-only behavior, authentication requirements, or side effects. The tool is likely a simple get operation, but this is not confirmed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, making it concise. However, it is under-specified and lacks informative content, which detracts from its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description should at least mention the return value (a deployment status object). It fails to do so, and with four required parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter descriptions in the schema are minimal (e.g., 'owner', 'repo'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which already shows four required parameters. It does not explain how to obtain 'deployment_id' or 'status_id'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a deployment status' clearly uses a specific verb and resource, indicating retrieval of a single status. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'github_repos_get_deployment' or 'github_repos_list_deployment_statuses', leaving ambiguity about which to use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as listing statuses or getting the deployment itself. No prerequisites or context are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (4 words). While front-loaded with the action and resource, it is too sparse and does not earn its place with additional useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of what a collaborator is, the effect of parameters like affiliation and permission, and any return value details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. However, the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It could provide context on how to use parameters effectively (e.g., filtering by affiliation or permission).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List repository collaborators' clearly identifies the action (list) and the resource (repository collaborators). It is specific, but lacks differentiation from similar sibling tools like 'list_contributors' or 'list_members'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives such as listing contributors or members, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The agent has no insight into side effects or permissions needed, which is a critical gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only one sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not front-load key details or provide a clear summary. While it is not verbose, it is too brief to be fully effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain return values, pagination behavior, and scope (e.g., all repos in org). The current description omits this essential context, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters (org, type, sort, direction, per_page, page) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List organization repositories' clearly states the action and resource ('list' and 'organization repositories'). It is concise and aligns with the tool name, but does not differentiate from other list tools like 'github_repos_list_forks' or 'github_repos_list_collaborators'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided; the description does not specify when to use this tool, what alternatives exist (e.g., for user repos or specific types), or mention pagination or filtering capabilities. This leaves the agent without contextual decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic function without mentioning read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The description fails to add value beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is too terse. It could be expanded to include key details without becoming verbose. Conciseness does not compensate for lack of information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description should clarify return values. It does not. Given the complexity of the query (list PRs for a commit), the description lacks completeness and does not help the agent understand what the tool returns or how to interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% but schema descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'commit_sha' is described as 'commit_sha'). The tool description does not elaborate on parameter meaning, validation, or usage hints beyond what the schema provides. It adds no semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'List pull requests associated with a commit', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from similar tools like github_pulls_list (which lists all PRs) and github_repos_list_commits. However, it could be more explicit about the relationship (e.g., 'pull requests that contain this commit').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. Sibling tools like github_pulls_list and github_repos_list_commits exist but no comparison is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or the actual outcome of the ping (e.g., a test event is sent). This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, but it omits crucial information. It is concise but incomplete, which is not optimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and three required parameters, the description is too sparse to be considered complete. An agent would lack context on what happens after the ping.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Descriptions for parameters are minimal (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'hook_id'), and the tool description adds no further meaning. Schema coverage is 100% but the existing descriptions are terse, providing little value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Ping a repository webhook' clearly identifies the action (ping) and the resource (repository webhook), and distinguishes from org-level ping via the word 'repository'. However, it does not explain what 'ping' entails, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like github_repos_test_push_webhook or github_orgs_ping_webhook. The description lacks context for appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the action without disclosing side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether a build can be requested multiple times.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (5 words), which is concise but sacrifices necessary information. It is not front-loaded with critical details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks information about the return value (no output schema), prerequisites, or what the tool actually accomplishes beyond the name. It is insufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are minimal ('owner', 'repo'). The description adds no additional meaning or context about these parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Request a GitHub Pages build' clearly indicates the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_repos_get_pages_build' or 'github_repos_list_pages_builds', which have similar names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or conditions mentioned (e.g., the pages site must already exist).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks details about the destructive nature of the set operation (overwrites existing restrictions), required permissions, or the format of the 'body' parameter. No annotations are provided to supplement behavioral information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (4 words), which is efficient but at the cost of missing critical information that would be expected for a tool with multiple parameters and no annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, nested body, similar siblings), the description is insufficient. It does not clarify the operation semantics, body structure, or output behavior, leaving the agent to rely on implicit knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the schema has 100% description coverage, the descriptions are tautological (e.g., 'owner' for owner). The 'body' parameter is described as 'Request body (JSON object)', which adds no structure insight beyond the schema's 'object' type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The verb 'Set' clearly indicates a write operation that replaces existing app access restrictions. The tool name itself explicitly mentions 'set_app_access_restrictions', which distinguishes it from siblings like 'add' and 'remove'. However, the description does not explicitly state this distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus the add, remove, or delete variants. The description provides no context about the type of operation (set vs. add) or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states 'Update' indicating mutation, but lacks details on idempotency, required permissions, or behavior when the comment does not exist. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence, but it is under-specified. It lacks key details that would make it helpful, so it is not an efficient use of space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, yet the description does not indicate what the response contains (e.g., updated comment object). No error or edge case information is provided. With many sibling tools, the lack of contextual completeness is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although input schema coverage is 100%, the schema descriptions are just parameter names (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'comment_id', 'body'). The description adds no extra meaning; it does not explain that 'body' is the new comment text or the format expected. Baseline 3 is reduced because the description fails to add value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a commit comment' clearly identifies the verb (update) and resource (commit comment), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, or get. However, it does not specify what fields can be updated (e.g., only the body), which would improve clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create or delete. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the comment must exist) or that only the body field can be updated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like permission requirements or whether settings are overwritten. It only says 'Update', lacking details on side effects or required authorization.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (a single sentence), but it lacks substance. It is not verbose, but it could be more informative without becoming overly long.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of updating branch protection and the lack of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain that it modifies branch protection rules or describe the return value, leaving the agent with insufficient context for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions in the schema are minimal (e.g., 'owner' for owner). The description adds no extra meaning, especially for the 'body' parameter which is an unspecific JSON object. It fails to hint at expected fields like 'strict' or 'contexts'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update status check protection' clearly indicates the action (update) and resource (status check protection), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_status_checks_protection' or 'remove_status_check_protection'. However, it could be more specific about what aspects of the protection are updated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as adding or removing status check contexts. There is no mention of prerequisites like getting current settings first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a mutation operation (add/update) but provides no details on permissions required, rate limits, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing membership), or the nature of the legacy endpoint. With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits more thoroughly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence) and concise, but it lacks structure such as bullet points or sections. While brevity is positive, the extreme brevity sacrifices completeness, making it borderline under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, yet the description does not mention what the tool returns upon success or failure. Given the complexity of team membership management and the presence of many sibling tools, the description should provide more context about the operation's effects and expected outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions in the schema are simply the parameter names (e.g., 'team_id', 'username') and 'Request body (JSON object)'. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the body's expected structure (e.g., role field). This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool adds or updates team membership for a user, with the '(Legacy)' suffix distinguishing it from modern versions. It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource, making the purpose immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this legacy tool versus the non-legacy alternative (e.g., `github_teams_add_or_update_membership_for_user_in_org`). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Create a team' with no mention of required permissions, side effects, or response. Insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (3 words) but at the expense of necessary detail. Not an example of good conciseness; it is under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 parameters (one complex object) and no output schema, the description is severely lacking. No explanation of body structure, return values, or behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions), but descriptions are trivial: 'org' and 'Request body (JSON object)'. Baseline 3 applies, though no added value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a team' clearly states the action (create) and resource (team), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_enterprise_teams_create. It adds little beyond the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., enterprise team creation, or other team operations). No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description provides no behavioral traits (e.g., destructive nature, required permissions, reversibility). This is a removal operation, so basic transparency is expected but absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence. It is not verbose, but could be improved with more useful information without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is extremely minimal for a destructive operation. It does not explain success behavior, error conditions, or side effects. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% but each parameter description is just the parameter name (e.g., 'org'), adding no semantic value. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies due to high coverage, but the descriptions are tautological.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Remove a repository from a team'. It matches the tool name and is specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_teams_remove_repo_legacy or other team repo management tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., legacy version, add/update permissions). No prerequisites or context are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, what gets destroyed, or error behavior. The description carries the full burden but fails to deliver any transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no waste, but overly terse. It conveys the core action but lacks necessary detail. Adequate but not optimized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, and description does not explain return values, success criteria, or error handling. For a bulk deletion tool with nested body parameter, the description is insufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage but descriptions are minimal ('username', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete attestations in bulk' clearly states the verb and resource, but fails to differentiate from sibling tools like delete_attestations_by_id or by_subject_digest. It lacks specificity about what constitutes bulk.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs the other delete attestation tools. No prerequisites, cost, or context provided. The agent has no basis for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Set' (implying a mutation) but does not reveal if the operation is reversible, what values are allowed, authentication requirements, or side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It front-loads the core action but omits critical context like possible visibility values and body structure. A more informative yet compact description is possible.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of a defined input schema and no output schema, the description should provide complete guidance on how to use the tool. It fails to explain what the 'body' should contain, leaving a significant gap that could lead to incorrect usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('body') described as a JSON object, but no properties are defined. The tool description adds no further information about the body's expected structure (e.g., which fields like 'visibility' are required). The agent is left guessing the correct request format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set primary email visibility') and the target ('authenticated user'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list or add email. However, it does not define what 'visibility' entails (e.g., public/private), leaving ambiguity about the exact outcome.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update email, list email). There is no mention of prerequisites, restrictions, or typical scenarios, forcing the agent to rely solely on the tool name for context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Add', implying mutation, but does not disclose idempotency, required permissions, or whether the secret must already exist. This is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it lacks structure; key information is not front-loaded and brevity comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too brief for the tool's context. It does not specify what happens if the repository is already selected, or that the secret must be an organization-level secret. No output schema exists, so more behavioral detail is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are merely the parameter names (e.g., 'org'), providing no additional meaning. The tool description does not elaborate on the parameters, leaving the agent without context on how to fill them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add selected repository') and the target resource ('organization secret'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'github_actions_remove_selected_repo_from_org_secret'. However, it could be slightly more specific about what 'selected' means in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'github_actions_set_selected_repos_for_org_secret' or 'github_actions_list_selected_repos_for_org_secret'. No mention of prerequisites or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only uses the verb 'create'. It fails to disclose behavioral aspects such as side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what the token can be used for. The agent is left without important context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. While concise, it lacks structure that could improve readability, such as separating purpose from details. It is efficient but minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description is insufficient. It omits information about the token's usage, return value, and prerequisites. With no output schema or annotations, the agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'org'. The description does not add any further meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a registration token for an organization' clearly states the action and resource. The tool name includes 'for_org', distinguishing it from its repo counterpart. However, it does not elaborate on the purpose of the token or its typical use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_remove_token_for_org' or 'create_registration_token_for_repo'. Sibling tools perform similar actions with different scopes, but no differentiation is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only states 'Download job logs' – implying a read operation but fails to disclose whether the output is a URL, binary data, or plain text, or any details about side effects, rate limits, or security requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of six words – extremely concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary, and there is no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain the output format, how to find job_id, or any behavioral context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While the input schema has 100% description coverage, the descriptions are merely parameter names (owner, repo, job_id) without any additional context. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema, not even explaining how to obtain the job_id or the relationship between parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (download) and the target (job logs for a workflow run). The verb and resource are specific, and the name distinguishes it from similar tools like 'download_workflow_run_logs' (which downloads all logs) and 'download_workflow_run_attempt_logs'. However, it does not explicitly note that it downloads logs for a single job, which is implied by the job_id parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'github_actions_download_workflow_run_logs' or 'github_actions_download_workflow_run_attempt_logs'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, required permissions, or what the response format is. The agent must infer these from the name alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it could be improved by front-loading key behavioral information like 'Read-only operation' without adding length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It omits what the tool returns (e.g., a numeric limit value), and does not explain how it fits into the broader set of cache limit tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'org' has a schema description of just 'org', and the tool description adds no additional meaning about its format or usage. The agent only knows it expects a string.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'GitHub Actions cache storage limit for an organization'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the scope (organization) as opposed to enterprise or repository. However, it closely mirrors the tool name and lacks additional nuance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getting limits for a repository or enterprise. Given the numerous siblings with different scopes, explicit guidance would help the agent choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning response structure, pagination, permissions, or other behavioral traits. The agent receives no insight into side effects or data returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is so concise that it omits important details, making it less effective for an agent. Still, it is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return format (e.g., array of objects), pagination behavior, or any filtering options. An agent would need additional documentation to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage but the parameter description is just 'org', which adds no value. The tool description mentions 'organization' but does not clarify how the 'org' parameter should be specified (e.g., name vs ID) or provide any additional context. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'custom images for an organization', which matches the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_custom_image' and 'list_custom_image_versions' by specifying 'custom images' as the resource. However, it is minimal and could be more explicit about what 'custom images' refers to.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_custom_image' or 'list_custom_image_versions', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as being a read-only operation or supporting pagination (the schema includes per_page and page). The description does not mention these, leaving the agent unaware of pagination behavior and the non-destructive nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short at three words, which is under-specified rather than concise. While it avoids verbosity, it lacks structure and fails to include essential context, making it less helpful than a slightly longer but more informative description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination, or how to differentiate from similar tools. More detail is needed for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and types. The baseline is 3, and since the description does not enrich the understanding of parameters (e.g., clarifying that environment_name refers to the specific environment), the score remains 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List environment variables' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that get a single variable or list secrets. However, it omits the scope (per environment, as indicated by the required environment_name parameter in the schema). This minor lack of specificity prevents a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_actions_get_environment_variable or github_actions_list_environment_secrets. The description lacks context for proper selection among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'list', providing no behavioral details such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether it returns all secrets or filtered. Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden but fails to disclose key traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly brief (two words). While concise, it omits essential information, making it insufficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and numerous sibling list tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain pagination, scoping, or how it differs from related tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List repository secrets' clearly states the action (list) and resource (repository secrets). However, among many sibling tools with similar names (e.g., list_org_secrets, list_repo_organization_secrets), it does not differentiate its scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_repo_organization_secrets. No guidance on prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description only states the removal action but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the runner still exists (independent vs. deleted), side effects, or permission requirements. For a mutation tool without annotations, more context is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It could be improved by adding brief usage context without sacrificing conciseness, but current form is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain what happens after removal (e.g., return value, success indicators). For a mutation tool with three required parameters and no annotations, the description should include basic post-action behavior or error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions for parameters are minimal (just parameter names like 'org', 'runner_group_id', 'runner_id'). The description adds no additional meaning, such as value formats, sources, or constraints. With high schema coverage but uninformative descriptions, the tool fails to clarify parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove a self-hosted runner from a group for an organization'), which is specific and matches the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_self_hosted_runner_to_group_for_org' or 'delete_self_hosted_runner_from_org', though the verb 'remove' and context of group membership provide implicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as deleting a runner entirely or adding it to a different group. Prerequisites or conditions (e.g., runner must exist, group must contain runner) are not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies mutation but does not disclose whether settings are overwritten, merged, or require specific permissions. This is insufficient for a set operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at 9 words, but it could be slightly more informative without losing efficiency. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of setting GitHub Actions permissions, the description is incomplete. It does not reference the corresponding API endpoint, explain the policy implications, or provide links to documentation. The agent would need external knowledge to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the body parameter description ('Request body (JSON object)') is generic and adds no meaning. The description does not explain the expected structure of the body (e.g., required fields like allowed_actions or patterns), so the agent lacks essential details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'allowed actions and reusable workflows for a repository', distinguishing it from sibling tools like github_actions_get_allowed_actions_repository and github_actions_set_allowed_actions_organization. However, it lacks nuance on what 'allowed actions' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The agent is left without context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description lacks behavioral details. It does not mention that this is a write operation (though implied), nor does it disclose the effect (overwrite vs. add), authentication requirements, rate limits, or idempotency. The body parameter is vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loading the core purpose. It is not verbose, but the brevity sacrifices important details. The tool name is long, but the description is appropriate in length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the behavior, especially for a tool with many siblings. It does not explain that 'set' implies replacing the list, nor does it describe the expected body content or return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage, but the descriptions for 'org' and 'secret_name' are merely the parameter names. The 'body' parameter is described only as 'Request body (JSON object)', which adds no meaningful guidance on required fields or structure. The tool description contributes no additional parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set selected repositories for an organization secret' clearly indicates the action (set) and the resource (selected repositories for an org secret). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from similarly named siblings like 'add_selected_repo_to_org_secret' or 'remove_selected_repo_from_org_secret', which could cause confusion about whether it replaces or updates the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the existence of tools for adding or removing individual repositories, it would be helpful to state that this tool replaces the entire set, but no such information is provided. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the basic 'set' action, no behavioral traits are disclosed. There is no mention of whether this overwrites all selections, requires special permissions, or has rate limits. Given the absence of annotations, the description should compensate but fails to do so.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is overly terse and sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, the absence of an output schema, and the moderate complexity of the operation (set with a body parameter), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the effect of the operation, the required format of the body, or any side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters beyond what is already in the input schema. The schema descriptions are minimal (just field names), and the body parameter's role is unclear from both schema and description. The tool requires a body object, but its structure is not explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set selected repositories') and the resource ('organization variable'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from the similar sibling tool 'github_actions_set_selected_repos_for_org_secret', and it fails to clarify whether 'set' implies replacement or addition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus its siblings like 'add_selected_repo_to_org_variable' or 'remove_selected_repo_from_org_variable', nor does it mention prerequisites or consequences.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing whether it overwrites existing selections, what happens with an empty body, required permissions, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, it could benefit from a more structured format (e.g., listing key behavior).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (setting repository-level permissions in an organization) and the large number of sibling tools, the description lacks critical details such as overwrite behavior, required body structure, and expected output. No output schema is provided, increasing the need for description completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has parameter descriptions that are minimal ('org' -> 'org', 'body' -> 'Request body (JSON object)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning. Despite 100% schema coverage, the descriptions are unhelpful, and the tool description does not compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Set), resource (selected repositories), and scope (for GitHub Actions in an organization). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_selected_repositories_enabled_github_actions_organization' but could be more explicit about whether it replaces or adds to the existing selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'enable_selected_repository_github_actions_organization' (singular) or 'disable_selected_repository_github_actions_organization'. The description does not mention prerequisites or trade-offs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'list public events' without mentioning read-only nature, pagination behavior, or response structure. The schema covers pagination parameters, but the description adds no additional behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. It is appropriately short, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (list operation, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return format, pagination specifics, and the concept of a repository network. The schema provides some context, but the description does not fill the gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema description coverage is 100%, the descriptions for owner and repo are merely the parameter names ('owner', 'repo'), offering no semantic value. The tool description does not explain how owner and repo define the network. The per_page and page parameters are well-described in the schema, so the description adds no extra meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists public events for a network of repositories. The verb 'list' and resource 'public events' are specific, and 'network of repositories' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_public_events and list_public_events_for_user. However, the description does not explicitly define what a 'network' means, which could be ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus similar sibling tools (e.g., list_public_events, list_public_events_for_user). There is no mention of prerequisites, trade-offs, or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a state change but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, or the exact behavior (e.g., marks all unread notifications as read?). No annotations are provided to supplement this gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at one sentence. While it could benefit from more context, it avoids verbosity and gets the main point across efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of sibling tools and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the scope of notifications affected, the expected body format, or what the tool returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'body' is described as 'Request body (JSON object)' with no additional details on expected structure. Despite 100% schema coverage, the schema is unconstrained, and the description fails to clarify what fields are needed or optional.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Mark notifications as read' clearly states the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_activity_mark_repo_notifications_as_read' or 'github_activity_mark_thread_as_read', which share a similar purpose but with different scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scope (e.g., all notifications vs. per-repo or per-thread), nor any conditions for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or authentication requirements. The description is insufficient to inform an agent about safety or expected behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but too brief to convey useful information. It could be expanded to include more details without becoming unnecessarily verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain what the response contains. For a retrieval tool, this is a notable gap, but the tool is simple enough that the basic purpose is somewhat clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, but the descriptions are merely field names ('owner', 'repo', 'task_id'), adding no extra meaning. The tool description does not elaborate on parameter semantics either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get a task by repo', which implies retrieving a specific task. However, it does not mention that the task_id is required, making it slightly vague compared to the tool name which includes 'by_repo_and_id'. It does distinguish from siblings like 'get_task_by_id' and list tools, but not explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'github_agent_tasks_get_task_by_id' or 'github_agent_tasks_list_tasks_for_repo'. The description provides no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any behavioral traits like data freshness, pagination behavior, rate limits, or required permissions. The simple phrase 'Get route stats' gives no insight into side effects or operational characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but lacks meaningful content. For a tool with 10 parameters, a single phrase is under-specified; conciseness should not come at the expense of informativeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or any operational context like pagination or time range semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning. However, it does not provide context for how 'actor_type' and 'actor_id' interact or what constitutes a 'route stat', leaving some ambiguity that the schema alone does not clarify.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'route stats' with a filter 'by actor'. However, it does not distinguish among sibling tools like 'get_subject_stats' or 'get_summary_stats', leaving ambiguity about what 'route stats' specifically entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as other API insights tools. Context about prerequisites, typical usage, or exclusions is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or return format. It simply states 'get report' with no additional context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that succinctly states the core function. It is efficient and front-loaded, though could benefit from more detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the report contains or any behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, achieving the baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves a billing premium request usage report for a user. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_github_billing_usage_report_user' or 'get_github_billing_premium_request_usage_report_org', which may cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as required permissions or whether the user must have premium requests enabled.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It does not mention if the operation is read-only, required permissions, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that efficiently states the purpose without unnecessary words. It could be slightly more informative, but it is not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain the report's content, format, or any limitations. Given the complexity of billing data, the agent lacks context to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it gets a billing usage report for an organization, which distinguishes it from most sibling tools that are about actions, issues, etc. However, it does not differentiate from other billing siblings like github_billing_get_all_budgets_org, which also retrieve billing data but of a different type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other billing report tools. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get', implying a read operation, but fails to mention authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it is a safe read-only operation. The description lacks sufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, but it is undersized for a tool with 7 parameters. It could benefit from a brief overview of the summary's scope or filtering options without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the summary's content, how filtering works, or what the return value represents. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, yielding a baseline score of 3. It does not elaborate on how parameters like year, month, day, repository, product, or SKU affect the summary.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets a billing usage summary for a user, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like the org version or the non-summary report, which share similar names and purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as the org-level counterpart or the full usage report. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation, omitting details like idempotency, authentication requirements, or potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The tool name and description are extremely concise, which is acceptable for a simple get operation. However, it could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and minimal description, the tool lacks completeness. It does not explain what a check run is or what the response contains, leaving important gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter descriptions in the schema are tautological (e.g., 'owner'). The description adds no additional meaning, such as explaining what a check_run_id is or how to obtain it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a check run' clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (check run), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, update, or list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_checks_list_for_ref or github_checks_get_suite. Context on prerequisites or scenarios is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., whether it is destructive, requires permissions, or side effects). The description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. It is concise, though it may be too brief for completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks essential context: it does not specify whether the configuration is for an org or enterprise, what the 'body' parameter expects, or what the outcome of attaching is. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, more detail is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'attach' and the resource 'configuration to repositories'. It conveys the basic action, but does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'attach_enterprise_configuration' or clarify the scope (org vs enterprise).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context provided. The single sentence does not help an agent decide between this and other configuration attachment tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It only says 'Create' implying a write operation, but lacks details on required permissions, idempotency, or effects. No output schema or return value description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no redundancy. It is concise, but could include more information without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and a complex operation, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what a code security configuration is, what the body should contain, or any side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are minimal ('enterprise' and 'Request body (JSON object)') and the description adds no extra meaning. The body parameter is vague, no hint of required fields or structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (create) and resource (code security configuration) and scope (for an enterprise). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like create_configuration (which might be for org or repo), though the name itself indicates enterprise scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_configuration for org or repo). No information about prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Create or update', which is generic. It does not mention authentication requirements, whether the secret is encrypted, what happens on update, or any side effects. This leaves the agent with minimal behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, and the description does not mention return values. The tool is a mutation (create/update) but lacks information on success indicators, error handling, or idempotency. Given the complexity of secret management, the description is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage but each description is just the parameter name (e.g., 'owner' for owner). The body parameter is described only as 'Request body (JSON object)' with no structure. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, failing to clarify the expected body format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create or update' and the resource 'repository secret'. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like github_actions_create_or_update_repo_secret, which has an identical description. The name implies it's for Codespaces, but the description does not clarify this scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_actions_create_or_update_repo_secret or github_codespaces_create_or_update_org_secret). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only says 'Create a codespace'. It omits side effects (e.g., resource consumption), permission requirements, or the fact that the nested 'body' parameter controls codespace configuration. The name hints at 'authenticated_user', but this is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, achieving conciseness. However, it is arguably too terse, sacrificing informativeness. It is front-loaded but lacks structure for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 params, nested body, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of the 'body' parameter, the absence of output schema, or the authentication context, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. The 'body' parameter is described as 'Request body (JSON object)' in the schema, but the description does not clarify expected fields or structure, reducing its value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a codespace in a repository' clearly states the verb (create) and resource (codespace in a repo), distinguishing it from siblings like create_for_authenticated_user (no repo) and create_with_pr_for_authenticated_user (linked to PR). However, it lacks specificity about repo ownership or prerequisites.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like create_for_authenticated_user or create_with_pr_for_authenticated_user. The agent must infer from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for correct selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description merely restates the action without disclosing side effects, permissions required, or error conditions. The bare statement 'Delete an organization secret' adds no value beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (4 words), but appropriate given the simple delete operation. No structural elements (e.g., sections) needed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks context to distinguish from sibling tools (e.g., github_actions_delete_org_secret). Does not clarify that this is specific to Codespaces.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters but with minimal descriptions ('org', 'secret_name'). The tool description adds no further meaning, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Delete' and resource 'organization secret'. However, it does not differentiate from similar delete tools for other services (e.g., Actions, Dependabot) in the same server.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_actions_delete_org_secret). Lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does not disclose that deletion is irreversible, whether it requires specific permissions, or any side effects. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence) and to the point. It front-loads the action and resource. However, it could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and the large number of sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify the scope (authenticated user's secrets), potential error states, or the impact of deletion. A more complete description would help the agent understand when and why to use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, secret_name, has a schema description that just repeats its name ('secret_name'), which is not informative. The tool description does not provide any additional context about what constitutes a valid secret name or where it comes from. Despite 100% schema coverage, the description fails to add meaningful semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a secret for the authenticated user' clearly specifies the action (delete) and the resource (secret scoped to the authenticated user). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_or_update, get, list, which have different verbs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to delete, or any context about the secret's lifecycle.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. However, it only says 'Get' without disclosing any side effects, authorization needs, or error handling (e.g., if org not found).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., list of exclusion rules). The current description is too minimal to be fully informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% but the parameter 'org' is only described as 'org'. The tool description repeats 'for an organization' but adds no further meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Get' and the resource 'Copilot content exclusion rules' for an organization. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'set' or 'list' found in the same server.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without any indication of effects, required permissions, data format, or whether it is read-only. Lacks essential transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words. Concise and to the point, though it could include more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of many similar Copilot metrics tools, the description is too sparse. It lacks details on return format, required enterprise identifier format, and does not clarify the difference from sibling tools. Incomplete for effective tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves enterprise usage metrics for a specific day. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'copilot_enterprise_usage_metrics' which may cover a range; the name includes 'one_day' but the description could explicitly contrast.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., the range-based enterprise metrics tool or organizational-level tools). No prerequisites or scenarios provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Get' without disclosing read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior for invalid dates. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no waste. It front-loads the purpose but lacks structure like headings or lists.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should hint at the metrics returned. It does not mention data shape, aggregation, or what 'usage metrics' include. The two-parameter simplicity does not excuse the lack of return value context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the 'org' parameter description is tautological ('org'), adding no value. The 'day' parameter description is helpful. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, and the poor 'org' description lowers the score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Copilot organization usage metrics' scoped to a specific day. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'github_copilot_copilot_organization_usage_metrics' which likely covers a date range.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the per-user or date-range variants. The description implies a single-day query but provides no selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description lacks behavioral details such as encryption requirements, idempotency, side effects, or authentication needs. Only states the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, efficient and front-loaded. However, conciseness sacrifices necessary detail; a bit more context would improve without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and minimal param descriptions. Missing essential context like secret encryption, scope, or related operations. Insufficient for an agent to use correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema_description_coverage is 100%, the descriptions are tautological (e.g., 'owner' -> 'owner'). The description adds no extra meaning; the 'body' param is vaguely described as 'Request body (JSON object)', insufficient for proper usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create or update a repository secret' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_or_update_org_secret' by context, but could explicitly mention 'Dependabot' for standalone clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., org-level secret tool). Does not specify prerequisites or conditions for create vs update.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Updates', implying mutation, but does not disclose whether the update is incremental or full replacement, required permissions, or potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing access). For a mutation tool, this omission is significant.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and upfront about the tool's purpose. While it could be slightly more structured (e.g., adding a line about input format), it is not overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and minimal parameter info, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the body affects the access list, the scope of the update, or the return value. An agent lacks enough context to safely invoke this tool without additional knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but parameter descriptions are tautological ('org') or generic ('Request body (JSON object)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning for parameters. It does not specify expected keys in the body, which is critical for a free-form object. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (updates) and the resource (Dependabot's repository access list for an organization). It differentiates from sibling tools like github_dependabot_repository_access_for_org (which gets the list) and github_dependabot_set_repository_access_default_level (which sets default level). However, the description could be more precise about what 'repository access list' entails, e.g., which repositories are accessible.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, whether updates are additive or replace existing access, or any context about the body parameter. Without notes about when to use this vs. other access-related tools, an agent may misuse it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or any side effects. It omits key behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, or what response to expect. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 8 words, very concise. However, conciseness comes at the expense of helpfulness; the description is efficient but fails to include necessary details. It earns points for being front-loaded and direct.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of context. It does not explain the SBOM format, return type, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a simple export tool, more context is needed for an agent to use it reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters ('owner', 'repo') with descriptions that are just the parameter names. The tool description adds no meaning to these parameters, such as clarifying that 'owner' is a username or organization. Since the schema descriptions are trivial, the description's silence on parameters reduces its usefulness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Export a software bill of materials') and the resource ('for a repository'). It is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'github_dependency_graph_create_repository_snapshot' or 'github_dependency_graph_diff_range', though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice, and fails to mention prerequisites or context. The agent receives no help with decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The description only implies a read operation but does not mention idempotency, rate limits, authentication needs, or return format. It adds minimal value beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single three-word sentence, which is concise but arguably too terse. It repeats the tool name without adding substance. While front-loaded, it does not earn its place by providing additional clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of parameters and output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand what the tool returns (e.g., list of emoji codes, URLs). The tool is simple, but the description omits necessary context about the response structure or scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is vacuously 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not add any parameter information, but also does not detract from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get emojis' states the action and resource but is vague; it does not specify the scope (e.g., GitHub emojis, custom) and is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'github_emojis_get'. It distinguishes from sibling tools only by omission, as most siblings are unrelated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about typical use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose that deletion is destructive and irreversible, nor does it mention authorization requirements, side effects, or what happens to associated resources. The description is too minimal for a delete operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is overly minimal, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete operation with two required parameters and no output schema, the description lacks behavioral context, parameter semantics, and usage conditions. It is incomplete for an AI agent to safely and correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, but descriptions are just the parameter names ('enterprise', 'team_slug'), adding no meaningful semantics. The general description does not elaborate on parameters, leaving them under-documented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete an enterprise team' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (enterprise team), which is specific. It distinguishes from siblings like create, get, list, and update, but does not explicitly differentiate from other delete operations (none present in siblings).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., team existence, permissions), and no when-not-to-use conditions. The description provides no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as permissions, error handling, or rate limits. It only states the action, leaving the agent uninformed about important behavioral aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at 4 words, but this brevity results in under-specification. Important details are omitted, making it insufficient for effective tool selection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and simple parameters, the description should include details about return values or prerequisites. It fails to provide a complete picture, leaving the agent with inadequate information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions that simply repeat parameter names (enterprise, team_slug). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, achieving the baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly indicates the verb 'Get' and the resource 'enterprise team', distinguishing it from the sibling 'list' tool. However, it could be more specific about what data is retrieved (e.g., team details, members).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_enterprise_teams_list or github_teams_get_by_name. The description lacks any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a gist' with no details about side effects, required permissions, or output. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely terse (3 words). While concise, it omits essential context and is under-specified. Standard good practice would include at least a sentence elaborating on the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the GitHub API, the existence of many sibling gist tools, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what constitutes a valid body, response structure, or error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (one parameter with a basic description). The tool description adds no extra information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate, but the lack of parameter specifics (e.g., required fields like 'files') limits usefulness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a gist' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes this tool from other gist tools (e.g., list, update, delete) by specifying the 'Create' verb. However, it lacks any additional context about what a gist is.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, authentication, or typical use cases. The description provides no decision-making support for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'create', which implies mutation, but omits details like side effects, permissions, rate limits, or the exact nature of the tag object. The agent has insufficient behavioral cues.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it borders on under-specification, but conciseness itself is high.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values or prerequisites. It does not. The tool is a creation endpoint, but the agent learns nothing about what is returned or required authentication.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, but parameter descriptions are just parameter names (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, especially for the complex 'body' parameter whose required fields (tag, message, object, type) are not mentioned.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a tag object' clearly states the verb and resource, making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from other git creation tools like git_create_ref or git_create_commit, which are siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like git_get_tag or git_create_commit. The description lacks any context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are available, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as what the blob contains (e.g., raw content, encoding), authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description fails to provide context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, but it is under-specified. It does not earn its place by providing useful information; it merely repeats the tool's name in a slightly different form.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema, the description should explain what a blob represents and what the return value contains (e.g., raw file content, encoding). The current description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's complete behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the parameter descriptions are minimal (just parameter names). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema itself is clear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a blob' clearly states the verb and resource, and in the context of sibling git tools like github_git_get_commit and github_git_get_tree, it distinguishes itself by resource type. However, it could be more specific by mentioning it's a Git blob or file content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_repos_get_content. The description lacks any context about appropriate usage scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not confirm it is non-destructive, what the response contains, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (5 words), which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. It lacks context about the tool's purpose and usage, making it under-specified rather than efficiently brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal to be complete. It does not explain what a gitignore template is, how to use the 'name' parameter, or what the response looks like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the 'name' parameter beyond what is in the schema. The schema itself lacks descriptive text for 'name', but the description does not clarify what values are valid or expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a gitignore template' clearly states the action and resource (gitignore template). It implicitly differentiates from the sibling 'github_gitignore_get_all_templates' by specifying 'a template' rather than 'all templates', but does not explicitly mention this distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_all_templates', nor does it mention prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the action without disclosing effects on existing restrictions, idempotency, or required permissions. The word 'set' implies mutation, but no further details are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one short sentence. While efficient, it lacks structure (e.g., no bullet points or additional sections) and could be improved by including more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a nested 'body' parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the body should contain or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no value beyond the input schema. The schema provides terse descriptions ('org', 'Request body (JSON object)') and the description does not clarify the body structure or permissible values. With schema coverage at 100% but poor descriptions, the agent gains no insight into how to properly fill the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set interaction restrictions for an organization' clearly states the verb (set) and resource (interaction restrictions for an org), distinguishing it from sibling tools for users or repos. However, it does not specify what types of interactions are restricted, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives like set_restrictions_for_user or for_repo, nor does it explain prerequisites or context for setting restrictions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without revealing behavioral traits like authentication requirements, permissions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, very concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool creates a comment on an issue, but the description omits this context. It does not explain that the comment is added to an existing issue or mention any limitations. Incomplete for a write operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but descriptions like 'owner' and 'repo' are minimal. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, hitting the baseline for full coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create an issue comment' clearly states the action and resource. It is specific and unambiguous, but does not differentiate from other comment-related tools like those for gists.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as github_issues_list_comments or github_issues_update_comment. No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'delete', which implies mutation/destruction, but omits critical details: what happens if the field doesn't exist, whether deletion is permanent, permission requirements, or response format. The minimal description fails to disclose behavioral traits beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—one sentence of 7 words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, given the lack of behavioral and parameter details, the conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a sparse description. Important context about error handling, success indicators, idempotency, and relationship to sibling tools is missing. The agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior from this data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, but the schema descriptions are tautological (parameter names only). The tool description adds no additional meaning; it does not explain what repository_id, issue_number, or issue_field_id represent or how they relate. The agent is left to infer from parameter names, which may be ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Delete', the resource 'issue field value', and the context 'from an issue'. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like set_issue_field_values or add_issue_field_values, which have similar scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, whether the field value must exist, or scenarios where delete is preferred over set/add. The agent receives no decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'assign', which implies a mutation, but fails to mention required permissions, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing assignments), reversibility, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant omission.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of a single sentence with no redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded with the action and resources. However, it may be too brief for an agent to fully understand without additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what an organization role is, how team_slug relates to the team, or what role_id refers to (e.g., from org roles list). An agent lacks context to use the tool accurately without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, but each parameter description is just the parameter name (e.g., 'org', 'team_slug', 'role_id'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning, such as how to obtain these values or format constraints. The schema does the minimal job, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Assign an organization role to a team' clearly indicates the action (assign) and the resources (organization role and team). The tool name itself specifies 'team' vs 'user', but the description does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'github_orgs_assign_user_to_org_role'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., assigning a user to a role, revoking roles). There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. The description is purely operational without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'List', implying a read operation, but does not mention pagination, rate limits, or what constitutes an attestation repository.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (4 words) but lacks necessary detail, making it under-specified rather than efficiently verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the returned data, filtering options, or the nature of attestation repositories.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions that are reasonably detailed. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'attestation repositories', providing a specific purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_attestations' or 'list_attestations_bulk', which are also list operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'List issue types' without indicating that it is a read-only operation, any data scoping (e.g., all issue types for the org), or pagination behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is appropriate for a simple tool. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what issue types are, the format of the output, or any important context like required authentication.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes the 'org' parameter simply as 'org', and the description adds no additional meaning (e.g., whether it's the org name or ID). With 100% schema coverage but no helpful description, the parameter semantics are minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List issue types for an organization' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (issue types) but does not differentiate from sibling tools like create/update/delete issue types, relying on the tool name for distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create/update/delete issue types or list issue fields). The description does not mention context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'List' but does not confirm read-only nature, required permissions, or any side effects. The expected return format or pagination behavior is absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with no extraneous information. However, it may be too terse for an agent to fully understand usage. Structure is simple and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should explain what is returned (e.g., list of team names). It does not. Also missing details on pagination, required scopes, or the concept of security manager teams. Incomplete for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description for 'org' is simply 'org' (tautological). The tool description adds no further meaning or context for the parameter. Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter description is unhelpful, and the tool description does not compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List security manager teams' clearly indicates the action (List) and resource (security manager teams), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add/remove. However, it does not explicitly state the scope (organization) which is evident from the parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other org-related list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description is solely responsible for behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'Remove' but does not mention side effects (e.g., permission changes), reversibility, or required permissions, leaving critical behavioral aspects undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise at five words, but this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. It effectively communicates the core action without extraneous text, but could benefit from slight expansion for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two required string parameters), the description is still inadequate. It does not explain what a security manager team is, what happens after removal, or potential error states, leaving the agent underinformed for a complete interaction.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the schema descriptions are merely the parameter names ('org', 'team_slug') and lack meaningful explanation. The tool description adds no additional context for parameters, failing to clarify what constitutes a valid team_slug or the role of org.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Remove' and the resource 'a security manager team', making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'add_security_manager_team' or 'list_security_manager_teams', the verb itself serves as a clear distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., team must be a security manager team), or alternatives. It lacks context on when not to use it, leaving the agent without usage boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description lacks behavioral details. No annotations exist. It does not disclose whether the review approves or denies, what permissions are needed, or if the operation is destructive. The vague 'Review' term does not clarify actual impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence of 12 words, front-loading the action. However, it omits critical details which would increase usefulness without adding verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (bulk review, nested body parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain expected body structure, outcome, or prerequisites, leaving agents with insufficient information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but description adds no semantics beyond field names. The critical 'body' parameter is left as an unstructured JSON object with no guidance on required properties (e.g., action, policy_ids), making it difficult to use correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Review' and resource 'requests to access organization resources with fine-grained personal access tokens'. However, it does not explicitly mention 'bulk' operation despite the tool name, and fails to differentiate from the sibling tool 'github_orgs_review_pat_grant_request' which handles singular reviews.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is a sibling for single request review, but description does not mention or distinguish when bulk is appropriate or provide any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does not disclose that this is a mutating operation, required permissions, or behavior for existing memberships. It only states the action without any behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence, but lacks structure such as parameter details or usage hints. Efficient but not informative enough.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and a nested body object, the description is incomplete. It should specify what the body can contain (e.g., role) and expected behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are minimal (just param names). The description does not explain that the body parameter likely contains the membership role or state, leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Set organization membership for a user', which is specific and distinguishes it from other org membership tools like get_membership or remove_membership.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites, no explanation of the body parameter's role (e.g., setting membership role).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, success/failure behavior, or rate limits. It fails to inform the agent about what happens when the tool is called.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise. However, it could benefit from additional context without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, preconditions, or error scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema descriptions are minimal (just the parameter names). The description does not clarify what the 'username' parameter represents or why it is needed when the action is for the authenticated user.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool sets public organization membership for the authenticated user. The verb 'set' is clear, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'check' or 'remove' public membership, leaving ambiguity about the exact action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other membership tools. Missing prerequisites, such as whether the user must already be a member of the organization.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, what happens if the package does not exist (error handling), authentication requirements, or rate limits. The lack of transparency could lead to incorrect invocation assumptions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no extraneous words. It is efficient but could be expanded slightly to include critical context without losing conciseness. The front-loading is acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description should explain what the return value represents (e.g., package details, metadata). It does not. Additionally, the two parameters are not elaborated, and there is no mention of required permissions or scope. Overall, the description is insufficient for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the input schema has 100% description coverage, the descriptions are tautological (just repeat parameter names). The tool description adds no further meaning to `package_type` (e.g., valid values like 'npm', 'docker') or `package_name` (format). The agent must rely solely on the schema, which provides no semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a package'), and specifies scope ('for the authenticated user'), which distinguishes it from package tools scoped to org or other users. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes a 'package' in the GitHub context (e.g., Docker, npm), which could be clarified further.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `github_packages_get_package_for_organization` or `github_packages_get_package_for_user`. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'List packages', implying a read operation, but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is insufficient for safe usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but too minimal for a tool with 5 parameters. It lacks necessary details such as filtering and pagination, making it under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema and the description does not explain return values or pagination behavior, the description is incomplete. For a list operation with filtering and pagination parameters, it should provide more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List packages') and the scope ('for an organization'), providing a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_packages_for_authenticated_user or list_packages_for_user, which have similar purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention optional parameters like visibility, page, or per_page, nor does it explain the context of organization packages.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as mutation, required scopes, or side effects. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it fails to provide context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence. While efficient, it lacks structure (e.g., no separate sections) and could be more informative without exceeding acceptable length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a draft item is, how the body should be structured, or what the response will be. For a tool with nested objects, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage but descriptions are just param names ('org', 'project_number', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning. The body parameter is an object but its structure is unspecified, leaving the agent without guidance on required or optional fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Create draft item) and scope (for organization owned project). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like github_projects_add_item_for_org, which adds an existing item to a project. The name already implies 'draft', so the description adds little differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_item. No preconditions (e.g., project must exist, auth requirements) are mentioned. Usage context is implied only by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not mention idempotency, side effects, authentication requirements, or error conditions, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 8 words, extremely concise and front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, and the key differentiator ('user-owned') is included without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of creating a project view, the absence of an output schema, and the large sibling context, the description is severely incomplete. It omits essential details such as what constitutes a valid view configuration, expected return values, and potential errors, making it inadequate for reliable agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema description coverage is 100%, the descriptions are merely the parameter names ('user_id', 'project_number', 'Request body (JSON object)'), adding no meaning. The tool description fails to explain what the 'body' object should contain or any constraints on parameters, offering no added value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('view for a user-owned project'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'github_projects_create_view_for_org'. However, it does not define what a 'view' is in the GitHub Projects context, slightly reducing clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'github_projects_create_view_for_org'), prerequisites, or scenarios where it should not be used. The description lacks any context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'delete' which implies destruction, but lacks details on permanence, reversibility, required permissions, or side effects. The description does not add context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At 5 words, the description is extremely brief. While conciseness is valued, this is too sparse and omits important information. Not every sentence earns its place; the entire description could be expanded to provide more utility without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and the complexity of a delete operation, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or any consequences of deletion. There is significant room for improvement to make the tool usable without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (each parameter has a description identical to its name). The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameters, such as how to obtain item_id or the format of project_number. Baseline score of 3 applies due to high schema coverage, but no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (project item for organization). It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_projects_delete_item_for_user by specifying 'for_org'. However, it doesn't define what a project item is, but the schema makes it sufficiently clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_item, update_item). It does not mention prerequisites, permissions, or any context that would help an agent decide to invoke this tool. No exclusions or scenarios are described.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Get' but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, required permissions, or what the response contains. Completely inadequate for transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action. It wastes no words, though could benefit from slight expansion for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what a project field is, how to obtain field_id, or what the return value looks like. For a tool with many siblings, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions, but they are trivial (just parameter names). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the work, though it does not compensate for lack of parameter guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'project field' scoped to 'organization'. However, among siblings like github_projects_get_field_for_user and github_projects_list_fields_for_org, it does not differentiate its purpose, lacking distinctiveness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites such as needing the field_id or project_number, nor does it explain context like retrieving a single field vs listing fields.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It only notes 'create' (mutation) but omits details on idempotency, permissions, side effects, or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words. However, it is perhaps too concise, omitting critical context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has 4 parameters including a complex nested body, but description provides no guidance on body structure, required fields, or return values. Output schema is absent. Incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage but parameter descriptions are merely the parameter names ('owner', 'repo', etc.). The 'body' parameter is described as 'Request body (JSON object)' with no structure hints. Description adds no semantic value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool creates a review comment for a pull request. It uses specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_reply_for_review_comment' and 'create_review'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_review' or 'create_reply_for_review_comment'. Lacks any context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the action without explaining what reactions are valid (e.g., content types like +1, heart), the format of the 'body' parameter, or any side effects. The input schema provides a vague JSON object for 'body' with no documentation of allowed properties, leaving the agent uncertain about correct invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple creation action, though it could be slightly expanded to include the body format example.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description alone is insufficient. It does not cover what reactions are allowed, authentication requirements, or how the 'body' parameter should be structured. The tool appears to have nested objects but no explanation of the body's purpose, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'comment_id', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The crucial 'body' parameter lacks details on valid keys or expected structure, which the description could have clarified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create reaction for a commit comment' clearly states the action (create) and the specific resource (reaction for a commit comment). The name also includes 'for_commit_comment', making the purpose unambiguous even among siblings like reactions for issues or PR review comments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_reactions_create_for_issue or list/delete reactions. The description does not mention any prerequisites or context for using this specific reaction creation endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral cues. The phrase 'Create reaction' implies a write operation, but the description fails to disclose other traits such as authentication requirements, destructive potential, rate limits, or side effects. This minimal disclosure leaves the agent uninformed about operational consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple action, though it could benefit from brief structured information (e.g., bullet points) if more detail were needed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and moderate complexity (4 parameters, one nested), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or the structure of the 'body' parameter. The agent lacks complete context for effective invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While input schema coverage is 100%, each parameter description is merely the parameter name (e.g., 'owner'), adding no meaning. The tool description hints that 'body' is a JSON object for the reaction content, but it does not specify expected fields or format (e.g., the emoji name). The description adds little beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create reaction for an issue comment,' specifying the verb ('create'), resource ('reaction'), and target ('issue comment'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools targeting different objects (e.g., commit comments, issues). However, it omits any detail about what a reaction is (e.g., emoji) or context about the tool's scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or refer to any sibling tools. The agent receives no help in deciding to invoke this tool over other reaction creation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'Delete', indicating a destructive action. No annotations are present, so the burden is on the description to disclose effects (e.g., irreversibility, permission requirements), but it does not.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and to the point, using only essential words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, but lacks structural elements like examples or additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description fails to provide complete context: no mention of authentication, prerequisites (e.g., reaction must exist), or return value (no output schema). For a tool with 4 required parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although input schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are just the parameter names (e.g., 'owner', 'repo'). The tool description adds no additional meaning, leaving the agent with only the schema's minimal information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('pull request comment reaction'), which matches the tool name. However, it does not elaborate on the scope or that it targets a specific reaction by ID, which is implied by the parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating or listing reactions. The description lacks context for when deletion is appropriate or when other tools should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only says 'Create' implying a write operation but omits behavioral traits like idempotency, permissions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, extremely concise, but sacrifices necessary detail. Not overly verbose, though may be too minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without output schema and minimal description, the tool definition lacks essential context like what a deployment status is, required body fields, or error scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are just parameter names; the description adds no meaning beyond them. The body object's expected fields (state, description, etc.) are not explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Create a deployment status' with a verb and resource, but lacks specifics to distinguish from sibling tools like create_deployment or update_deployment_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites (e.g., deployment must exist) or context for status updates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations and no description of side effects, idempotency, permissions required, or error conditions. The tool name implies deletion but no details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (single sentence) with no wasted words, but it is too minimal for the complexity of the operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly. Sibling tools add some context but not sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all 3 parameters with 100% coverage, but descriptions are tautological (just 'owner', 'repo', 'branch'). Tool description adds no additional context. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Delete' and the resource 'admin branch protection', distinguishing it from siblings like set and get. However, it lacks specificity about what admin branch protection entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., general delete_branch_protection). No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description gives no behavioral details beyond the action 'Delete'. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., notification sent, access revoked), required permissions, or irreversible nature. With no annotations provided, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, very concise with no extraneous information. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices completeness, but for conciseness alone it scores well.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context for a delete operation. It does not explain what happens upon deletion, any side effects, or prerequisites, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, but each description is just the parameter name (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'invitation_id'). The tool description adds no further meaning, failing to compensate for the schema's minimal descriptions. An agent gains no additional insight into parameter format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Delete' and the resource 'repository invitation', making the primary purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_repos_update_invitation or github_repos_list_invitations, but the action itself is distinct enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites like required permissions or conditions for the invitation to exist. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond 'delete'. It does not mention required permissions, irreversibility, effects on the repository, or other important details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, appropriately concise for a simple delete operation. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., adding constraints), but it is not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context (e.g., what a GitHub Pages site is, that it does not delete the repository, requirements for deletion). It only states the action, missing important completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema describes parameters with trivial descriptions ('owner', 'repo'), and the tool description adds no further explanation. Although the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description does not add value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Delete) and the resource (a GitHub Pages site). It's specific but lacks differentiation from sibling tools like github_repos_delete or other deletion tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., deleting the entire repo vs. just the Pages site). The description does not mention any prerequisites or contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, what the output format is (e.g., role string), or any authentication requirements. The word 'permissions' is vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, grammatically correct sentence with no superfluous words. It is appropriately concise, though it could benefit from slight elaboration to improve clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with no output schema, the description should cover return value expectations (e.g., permission level such as admin, write, read) and clarify that the user must be a collaborator. It currently lacks these details, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% but descriptions are tautological ('owner', 'repo', 'username'). The description adds no additional meaning about parameter semantics (e.g., what owner represents, what username refers to). Baseline of 3 for high coverage is reduced because the description provides no augmentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get repository permissions for a user' clearly identifies the action (get) and resources (repository permissions, user). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add/remove collaborator or list collaborators, but could be more precise by specifying 'permission level'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_collaborators or check_collaborator. There is no indication of prerequisites (e.g., user must be a collaborator) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source for behavioral traits. It fails to disclose any behavior beyond the basic operation, such as permissions required, whether it's read-only, or what the response contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise and front-loaded with the purpose. Every word is useful, but it is too brief to cover additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two required parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal but lacks extra context such as what a ruleset is or when to use it. It is not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema are minimal but present. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('organization repository ruleset'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'github_repos_get_org_rulesets' or 'github_repos_get_org_rule_suite', which have similar names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but without annotations, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior, required permissions, or any side effects. The lack of depth fails to fully inform the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is clear and to the point. It is concise, but it lacks any structure like bullet points or sections. Still, it earns its place without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the response contains (e.g., status fields, timestamps). For a simple tool, this omission leaves the agent without critical return information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters are required and described only by their names in the schema (e.g., 'owner' as 'owner'). The description adds no additional meaning, such as the source of pages_deployment_id or format constraints, leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (status of a GitHub Pages deployment). It is specific enough to differentiate from sibling tools like create_pages_deployment or get_pages, though it could mention what statuses are returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites like needing a deployment ID from a previous creation step. The description only states the action, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The description simply states the action without elaborating on side effects or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at six words, but it lacks structural elements like bullet points or sections. While it efficiently communicates the core purpose, it could be more front-loaded with key details. The brevity is a strength but comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a webhook delivery is, what the response contains, or how to obtain required identifiers. The agent would need prior knowledge of GitHub webhooks to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema descriptions are trivial (just parameter names like 'owner'), offering no additional meaning. The tool description does not provide any parameter context (e.g., format, constraints, or how to obtain values like hook_id or delivery_id). With schema description coverage effectively 0% meaningful, the description adds no value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a delivery for a repository webhook' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (delivery for a repository webhook), distinguishing it from siblings like github_repos_list_webhook_deliveries and github_repos_get_webhook. However, it does not explicitly contrast with list_webhook_deliveries, so it is clear but not exceptional.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where it should not be used. Sibling tools like github_repos_list_webhook_deliveries are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits like pagination (via per_page/page), potential errors if repo doesn't exist, or rate limiting. The description simply says 'List forks' without any such disclosure, leaving the agent uninformed about side effects or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two words. While it is front-loaded, it lacks structure and is arguably under-sized for the complexity of the tool. It earns its place but does not provide enough information for an agent to use it effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and the moderate complexity of the tool (5 parameters, pagination, sorting), the description is severely lacking. It does not mention return values, common use cases, or behavior of parameters like sort order. The description is far from complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, describing all 5 parameters with basic descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description fails to add value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List forks' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (forks). It is specific enough to distinguish from other list tools like 'list branches' or 'list commits'. The verb+resource combination directly conveys what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to create a fork instead. There is no mention of prerequisites, common scenarios, or excluded use cases. The implicit context of listing forks is not enough for an agent to make informed decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'List', implying read-only, but fails to disclose important details such as permissions required (e.g., admin access to the repo), the nature of invitations (pending or past), or pagination behavior. The agent is left with significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At two words, the description is extremely concise but at the cost of missing critical information. It is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and no output schema. Conciseness should not sacrifice completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and the need to understand return values (list of invitations), the description is insufficiently complete. It does not mention what information is returned, how pagination affects results, or any other contextual details that would help an agent use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters (owner, repo, per_page, page). The description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List repository invitations' clearly specifies the verb (list) and resource (repository invitations), indicating a read operation. However, it does not differentiate from many other 'list' tools in the same server, such as list_collaborators or list_contributors, which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or context where listing invitations is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer without support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It does not state that this action is destructive, irreversible, or requires specific permissions. The agent is left unaware of the impact on branch protection rules.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and to the point, consisting of a single sentence. It is concise and avoids extra verbiage, though it could benefit from a bit more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It does not explain what 'status check protection' entails, what is removed, or the effects on branch protection. Agents may not understand the full consequence of invoking this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions (owner, repo, branch), but they are trivial (just the parameter names). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema is fully covered but adds no depth.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove status check protection' clearly states the verb and resource. It is specific and directly indicates what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_repos_remove_status_check_contexts' or 'github_repos_update_status_check_protection', which could cause confusion about the exact scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, typical scenarios, or note that it removes the entire status check protection (as opposed to just contexts). Agents lack context to decide between this and similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it merely repeats the tool name. It does not disclose that this is a mutation operation, what permissions are needed, or any side effects such as overwriting existing protections. The description adds no value beyond the title.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (6 words), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It does not earn its place by providing useful context; it could be considered a tautology.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should compensate with richer context. It fails to explain what 'admin branch protection' entails, what the tool actually changes, or what the expected outcome is. Incomplete for the complexity of branch protection settings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage with clear parameter descriptions (owner, repo, branch). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('admin branch protection'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_admin_branch_protection' or 'get_admin_branch_protection', which share similar naming patterns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_branch_protection or other protection settings). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or best practices for invoking this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states 'Update', implying a mutation operation, but no additional behavioral insights are given. Since no annotations are present, the description should disclose side effects, permission requirements, or response behavior. It fails to do so, leaving the agent uninformed about the operation's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence, 31 characters), which is concise but borderline too terse. It front-loads the core purpose, but given the complexity of the tool, some additional context would be warranted. It earns a 4 for being efficient, but loses a point for being overly minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and detailed parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly. It does not explain what pattern configurations are, how the body should be structured, or what happens upon update. The tool appears moderately complex (object parameter with flexible schema), yet the description provides no meaningful context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain the parameters (org and body) beyond what the schema already provides. The schema's parameter descriptions are minimal ('org' and 'Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no clarity on the body's expected structure or the role of the org parameter, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('organization pattern configurations'), which matches the tool name. It distinguishes this tool from sibling secret scanning tools that focus on alerts rather than pattern configs. However, it does not elaborate on what pattern configurations are, which might be unfamiliar to some agents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., creating or deleting pattern configs, or updating alerts). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'privately report' without disclosing behavioral traits such as confidentiality, notification triggers, required permissions, or how the report is processed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, efficient and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits details about expected response, successful outcome, or error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are trivial (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning about the body structure, required fields, or format. The agent cannot infer how to properly construct the request body.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Privately report a security vulnerability' clearly states the action and resource. The tool name is specific and distinguishes it from similar sibling tools like create_repository_advisory. However, it lacks elaboration on what 'privately' entails (e.g., not public disclosure).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_repository_advisory or create_fork. The agent has no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully bears responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only says 'Get a repository security advisory', omitting details about return format, authentication, rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand invocation expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded, but could benefit from additional context without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return type, prerequisites (e.g., ghsa_id format), or how the output relates to other advisory tools. The tool's complexity is moderate, but the description leaves many gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides parameter descriptions that are merely the parameter names ('owner', 'repo', 'ghsa_id'), offering no semantic value. The description adds no additional meaning to these parameters. With 100% schema coverage but poor descriptions, the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a repository security advisory' clearly states the action (get) and resource (repository security advisory), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list, create, or update. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from get_global_advisory beyond the word 'repository'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like list, create, or update. It does not mention that this requires a known ghsa_id or that it is for fetching a single advisory.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It implies mutation ('add or update') but provides no details on side effects, permission overwriting, or required authorization. The minimal text fails to transparently describe the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 6 words, which is concise but lacks critical information. It is not efficient in conveying value, as it omits details that would fit without bloating.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters including a nested body object) and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the body structure, permissible values for permissions, or the outcome of successful execution, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage, providing basic descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. For instance, the 'body' parameter's purpose is not elaborated (e.g., expected permission level like 'push', 'pull', 'admin').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Add or update team repository permissions', identifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool `github_teams_add_or_update_repo_permissions_legacy`, which has nearly identical wording.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `github_teams_check_permissions_for_repo_in_org` or `github_teams_remove_repo_in_org`. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects. It only states 'Delete a team', which is obvious from the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (three words) but lacks necessary structure and detail. It does not earn its place as it provides no new information beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and minimal schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the implications of deleting a team, such as impact on members, repositories, or permissions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for 'org' and 'team_slug' (though minimal). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (team). The name includes 'in_org' indicating scope. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'github_teams_delete_legacy' which performs a similar deletion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_teams_delete_legacy'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states 'Delete a team (Legacy)' without mentioning irreversibility, required permissions, cascading effects (e.g., on members or repositories), or that this is a destructive operation. The description fails to add value beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (3 words), but this comes at the cost of completeness. It omits critical details such as legacy deprecation, usage guidance, and behavioral notes. Conciseness is not achieved when it sacrifices necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (legacy vs modern API, no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Legacy' implies (e.g., deprecated, limited scope), how deletion affects team members or associated resources, or what the response contains. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single `team_id` parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's type and requirement. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema already documents the parameter adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('team'), and includes '(Legacy)' to differentiate from the non-legacy sibling tool `github_teams_delete_in_org`. This provides sufficient verb+resource+scope clarity for an agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `github_teams_delete_in_org`. It does not mention that this is a legacy endpoint or advise preference for the newer version. No exclusivity or context for usage is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It states 'Remove team membership' implying a destructive action, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as what happens if the membership does not exist, required permissions, or side effects. This is insufficient for safe agent use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at five words in a single sentence. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, conciseness comes at the expense of informative detail, which is acceptable for simplicity but limits completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about the operation's scope, effects, and relationship to sibling tools. It is too minimal to enable an agent to correctly decide when and how to use this tool among many similar team membership tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 3 parameters all with descriptions that are just the parameter names (e.g., 'org'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema description coverage but minimal content, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Remove team membership for a user'. It uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('team membership'), and the name includes 'in_org' to differentiate from legacy endpoints. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'remove_member_legacy' or 'remove_membership_for_user_legacy'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not suggest when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'add_or_update_membership' or 'remove_member_legacy'). There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update a team' without revealing any side effects, required permissions, or behavior when the team does not exist. This is insufficient for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at three words, but it sacrifices clarity. It is front-loaded but overly minimal for a tool with three parameters. It earns its place only barely.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely incomplete. It fails to explain what team attributes can be updated, the structure of the request body, or any preconditions. This is inadequate for an AI agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; parameter descriptions are minimal ('org', 'team_slug', 'Request body (JSON object)'). No additional context on the body format or constraints is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a team' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from create, delete, and list tools. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'github_teams_update_legacy' which also updates teams.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create, delete, or legacy update tools. No exclusions or context are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state that the operation is read-only, what the return value is (e.g., boolean), or error behavior (e.g., user not found). The name implies a check, but without explicit disclosure, the agent lacks critical behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. For a simple tool, this is appropriately sized. However, it lacks any structural elements (e.g., sections) that could improve scannability, but that is acceptable for a one-line description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description should still cover return type and error conditions to be complete. It does not mention that the tool likely returns a boolean or HTTP status code. An agent cannot fully understand how to use the result without this information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter 'username' with description 'username'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning (e.g., format, example). Although schema coverage is 100%, the schema description is minimal, and the tool description fails to compensate. Score is 2 due to insufficient semantic enrichment.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Check if a person is followed by the authenticated user' clearly states the action (check) and the resource (person followed by authenticated user). It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_users_check_following_for_user by specifying 'by the authenticated user', but it essentially restates the tool name. A 4 is appropriate because it's clear but lacks additional detail like return type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_users_check_following_for_user, github_users_list_followed_by_authenticated_user). The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or contexts where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects (e.g., whether existing GPG keys are replaced), idempotency, or required permissions. The tool creates a key, but there is no indication of what the response contains or any constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and to the point. However, it could be slightly expanded to include context about the GPG key or the request body without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (creating a GPG key with a nested object parameter) and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the expected structure of the body or the return value, leaving the agent with minimal context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'body', described only as 'Request body (JSON object)'. The description adds no additional meaning about expected fields or structure, failing to guide the agent in constructing the request beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('GPG key') for the authenticated user. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_public_ssh_key_for_authenticated_user' or 'create_ssh_signing_key_for_authenticated_user', which have similar descriptions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other key creation tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, authentication, or scenarios where a GPG key is needed over SSH keys.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'get a user' but gives no details about authentication needs, rate limits, return format, error handling, or side effects. This is a minimal description that adds no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of five words, very concise. It is front-loaded and easy to read. However, it could benefit from a bit more structure or detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain the return payload, whether it returns multiple users, or any edge cases (e.g., what happens when ID is invalid?). For a simple look-up tool, it should at least hint at the response structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with one parameter 'account_id' described as 'account_id'. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but per guidelines, high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3. The parameter semantics are adequate but not enhanced.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('get a user') and the identifier ('using their ID'), making the purpose specific. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'github_users_get_by_username', which uses a different identifier method. The verb+resource is clear, but lack of sibling distinction prevents a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_users_get_by_username' or 'github_users_get_authenticated'. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required authentication, rate limits, or return data structure. The full burden for transparency is unmet.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one short sentence) but lacks necessary details about behavior and differentiation. It is under-specified, trading conciseness for informativeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description should provide more context about what 'get a user' entails (e.g., public profile, authenticated user). It is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the parameter name 'username' being self-explanatory. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a user' clearly states the action and resource but does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_users_get_by_id. The verb 'Get' and resource 'user' are correct, but missing scope makes it only slightly above vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_users_get_by_id or github_users_get_authenticated. There is no context about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning potential errors (e.g., if key not found), authentication requirements, or rate limits. The tool name implies it's for the authenticated user, but the description doesn't elaborate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and to the point. It front-loads the action. However, it could include more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description should hint at what information is returned (e.g., key details). It also lacks context on when to use this specific retrieval versus listing or other GPG operations. The tool is simple but the description is not fully informative for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but the parameter description in the schema is merely the parameter name 'gpg_key_id'. The tool description adds no additional meaning, such as explaining that this ID is obtained from a list operation or is numeric.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves a GPG key for the authenticated user. The verb 'Get' and resource 'GPG key' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, and list by implying a single key retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., listing all keys or creating a key). No context is given for prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations given, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation via 'Get', but does not explicitly state idempotency, safety, authentication requirements, or side effects. The user must infer that this is a safe GET-like operation without confirmation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (11 words), front-loaded with the action and resource. It earns its place but could benefit from minimal additional context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return value format, how to obtain the key ID, or differentiate from list tools. The narrow context leaves the agent guessing about typical usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter 'ssh_signing_key_id' with a description that is just the parameter name. The tool description adds no additional meaning about what the ID represents or how to obtain it. Despite 100% schema coverage, the description fails to enhance understanding of the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get an SSH signing key for the authenticated user' clearly specifies the verb (Get), resource (SSH signing key), and scope (authenticated user). It implies a single resource retrieval but does not explicitly differentiate from the list tool that retrieves all keys, but the verb 'Get' suggests a singular item.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_ssh_signing_keys_for_authenticated_user'. The description lacks any context for selection, such as 'use this to retrieve a specific key by ID, not to list all keys'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is idempotent, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The description gives no such information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence. It is concise but too terse, missing important details that would make it valuable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description should provide more context on the body structure and expected behavior. It falls short, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but the parameter descriptions are minimal ('org', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'create' and the resource 'GitHub-hosted runner for an organization'. It distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with self-hosted runners or registration tokens, though it could be more specific about what is created.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like creating a self-hosted runner or registration token. The agent receives no context about typical use cases or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., triggers a run), required permissions, or potential errors. A mutation tool should at least indicate it initiates a workflow.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but lacks detail. It is front-loaded with the verb, but the brevity sacrifices necessary context. Could be improved without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and no annotations. Description fails to explain return value (likely the workflow run ID or nothing) or provide context about the body parameter (e.g., required fields like 'ref' and optional 'inputs'). Incomplete for a mutation tool with moderate complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with basic descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Body parameter remains somewhat vague, but baseline 3 is appropriate given schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states action 'Create a workflow dispatch event' with a verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_environment_variable' or 'approve_workflow_run'. However, it could be more explicit that it triggers a workflow run.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this triggers a workflow_dispatch event, requiring the workflow to have that trigger. Sibling tools include many other action-related tools, but no differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, required permissions, or side effects like breaking workflows. The simple description is insufficient to inform the agent about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (three words), which is efficient, but it sacrifices essential detail. It could easily include a sentence about the effect or requirements without becoming verbose. Thus, it is not optimally concise for effective tool selection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about the tool's impact (e.g., 'This action permanently deletes the artifact and cannot be undone'). The current description is too minimal to be considered complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but each parameter description is merely the parameter name (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'artifact_id'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. According to the guidelines, when coverage is high, baseline is 3, so this score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete an artifact' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (artifact). Combined with the tool name 'github_actions_delete_artifact', the purpose is unmistakable. However, it does not differentiate from other delete tools like 'github_actions_delete_actions_cache_by_id' or 'github_actions_delete_workflow_run'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus other delete tools, nor does it mention prerequisites, consequences, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist; description only repeats the action. No information about side effects, authorization needs, or behavior if variable does not exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema; description does not mention return values or confirmation. Lacks context about permanence of deletion and required permissions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are just parameter names (e.g., 'owner', 'repo'), adding no meaning. The tool description does not explain the parameters beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and resource (environment variable). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create or update environment variable, but does not specify scope (e.g., for a specific repo/environment).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., delete_environment_secret). No prerequisites or exclusion criteria provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Delete', implying a destructive action, but does not disclose consequences (e.g., irreversibility), requirements (e.g., permissions), or side effects (e.g., on ongoing workflows).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. However, it could include more detail without becoming overly verbose, such as clarifying the scope or side effects.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation, the description omits critical context: that deletion is permanent, any error conditions, expected response, and prerequisites like the runner being offline. Given no output schema or annotations, the description should provide these details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema parameter descriptions are tautological (just parameter names), and the tool description adds no additional meaning. It does not explain what 'hosted_runner_id' represents or how to obtain it, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of useful descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete', the resource 'GitHub-hosted runner', and the scope 'for an organization'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, update, get, and list operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the runner needing to exist or being idle, nor any indication of when deletion is appropriate compared to other operations like updating or listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only says 'Delete' without disclosing that the action is irreversible, may require admin permissions, or could affect workflow execution. The lack of such details is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that conveys the core action without extraneous information. It is appropriately brief for a simple deletion operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (3 required params, no output schema), the description is minimal but misses essential context such as the irreversible nature of deletion, required permissions, and post-deletion effects. For a destructive action without annotation support, more completeness is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the schema has 100% description coverage, each parameter description is just the parameter name (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'runner_id'). The tool description adds no additional meaning, such as the format of runner_id (presumably a numeric ID) or how to obtain it. The schema-level trivial descriptions do not compensate for the lack of enrichment.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (Delete), resource (self-hosted runner), and scope (from a repository). It distinguishes from the sibling 'delete_self_hosted_runner_from_org' by specifying the repo context. However, it is generic and lacks additional context about what a self-hosted runner is.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., deleting from an org), nor does it specify prerequisites such as the runner being offline or required permissions. This leaves the agent without guidance on appropriate invocation context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without any annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Create configuration' without indicating side effects, required permissions, or that the JIT configuration is typically one-time use, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and efficient, but it is too brief to convey useful context beyond the basic purpose. It could be expanded without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter details, the description fails to provide a complete picture. Important information about the body structure, return value, and usage prerequisites is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but the descriptions are minimal ('org', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so it stays at the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Create) and the resource (configuration for a just-in-time runner) with an organizational scope, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like the repo variant. However, it lacks specificity on what the configuration entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No information is provided about when to use this tool over alternatives such as create_registration_token_for_org or the repo-level sibling. The description offers no context on prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning that it is a read-only operation, what the public key is used for (e.g., encrypting secrets), or any required permissions. The description adds no value beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is not verbose. However, it lacks substance and fails to provide useful details. It is functional but not informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and many sibling tools, the description should explain the purpose of the public key and when to use this environment-specific variant. It does not address these needs, leaving the agent underinformed about tool selection and usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage, but parameter descriptions are just the parameter names (owner, repo, environment_name). The tool description adds no additional context about parameter formats, how to obtain environment_name, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters minimally.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get an environment public key' clearly specifies the verb (Get) and the resource (environment public key). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_org_public_key or get_repo_public_key, which are similar but operate on different scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_actions_get_org_public_key or github_actions_get_repo_public_key. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., environment must exist) or typical workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, what the return structure contains (e.g., enabled, allowed_actions), or any authentication or permissions required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) but lacks necessary detail. No redundancy, but it prioritizes brevity over informativeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain what 'permissions' data is returned. Given the complexity of GitHub Actions permissions, this omission makes the tool less complete for an agent to understand its output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with parameters 'owner' and 'repo' described minimally. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get GitHub Actions permissions for a repository' clearly states the action (get) and resource (GitHub Actions permissions for a repository). It distinguishes from siblings that operate at org level or manage specific permissions, but lacks explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_actions_get_github_actions_permissions_organization or github_actions_get_allowed_actions_repository. Missing context about what triggers the use of this specific tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, requires specific permissions, or any rate limits. The single line is insufficient to disclose behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at one sentence, but it is too minimal, lacking necessary context. Conciseness should not sacrifice completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain what the tool returns (the public key) or any prerequisites. It is incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no further meaning to the `org` parameter beyond what the schema already provides (just 'org').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'organization public key', which distinguishes it from similar tools for repos or environments. However, it could be more specific about the purpose (e.g., for encrypting secrets in GitHub Actions).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `github_actions_get_repo_public_key` or `github_actions_get_environment_public_key`. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but no details on idempotency, authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence, but it lacks substance. It is not maximally efficient because it could incorporate more useful information without increasing length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'settings' are being retrieved, leaving ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'org', but its description is just 'org'. The tool description does not add any further semantic meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it retrieves self-hosted runner settings for an organization. However, it uses 'settings' while the tool name specifies 'permissions', and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_self_hosted_runner_for_org' which retrieves specific runner details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_self_hosted_runner_for_org or set_self_hosted_runners_permissions_organization. The description simply states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only implies a read operation but lacks details on safety, authentication requirements, error handling, or output structure. With no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) but under-specified. While not verbose, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what a workflow run attempt is and how it differs from a run. It is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and brief schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a workflow run attempt' clearly states the action and resource, but does not differentiate from siblings like 'github_actions_get_workflow_run' or 'github_actions_get_workflow_run_usage'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'github_actions_get_workflow_run' or 'github_actions_list_workflow_runs'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose behavior like pagination, filtering, or that it returns a list of artifacts. Essentially only restates the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief (one sentence), but lacks critical information. It is not verbose, but under-specification reduces usefulness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not mention return format, pagination, or filtering capabilities, leaving the agent without essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List artifacts for a repository' clearly states the action and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'list_workflow_run_artifacts' by being repo-level, but does not explicitly differentiate in the description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternative listing tools, or any prerequisites. The description lacks usage context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'List', which implies a read operation. It does not disclose required permissions, rate limits, or that results are paginated (though per_page and page params exist). No behavioral details beyond the action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise but underinformative. It repeats the tool name without adding value. Could be more efficient by including context or behavioral notes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain return format or pagination behavior. It fails to do so, leaving the agent uninformed about what the response contains or how to handle large result sets.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all four parameters (org, runner_group_id, per_page, page). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List GitHub-hosted runners in a group for an organization', clearly indicating a read operation on hosted runners within a group. The verb 'List' and resource specification differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_self_hosted_runners_in_group_for_org' and 'list_hosted_runners_for_org' (which lacks group scope). However, it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like listing self-hosted runners or listing hosted runners without group context. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral details such as pagination, return list structure, or that it can filter by 'latest' or 'all'. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but lacks necessary detail for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema. It is not structured to front-load key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, pagination, or filtering capabilities, leaving critical gaps for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 6 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List jobs for a workflow run' clearly indicates the action (list) and resource (jobs for a workflow run). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_job_for_workflow_run' (single job) and 'list_jobs_for_workflow_run_attempt' (specific attempt), though it doesn't mention the filtering options available.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_jobs_for_workflow_run_attempt' or 'get_job_for_workflow_run'. No context on prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or whether secrets are returned decrypted. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to inform the agent of important constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at three words, but it is too minimal, omitting important details like pagination or result scope. While not verbose, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity, resulting in an adequate but not optimal structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, the description should provide more context about the return value. It does not mention that results are paginated or what fields are included. For a simple list tool, this is a notable gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all parameters (org, per_page, page) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List organization secrets', which clearly identifies the action (list) and resource (organization secrets). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_org_secret' or 'create_or_update_org_secret', but it does not explain what information is returned (e.g., names only or full details).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'github_actions_get_org_secret' for a single secret or 'github_actions_list_selected_repos_for_org_secret' for related data. The description lacks any context about use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description holds the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List repository variables' and omits details about pagination, authentication requirements, or the nature of the response. The agent is left guessing about important behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is appropriately sized for a simple tool. However, it lacks any structuring elements like lists or sections that could improve readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool is relatively simple, the description does not complete the context. It does not mention that the tool returns a list of variables, that it requires owner and repo parameters, or any information about the output. Without this, the agent may not fully understand the tool's functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain parameters in the context of the tool's operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb+resource pattern ('List repository variables'). It indicates the tool lists variables for a repository. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_actions_get_repo_variable' or 'github_actions_list_repo_organization_variables', which could cause confusion about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus related tools such as 'get_repo_variable' or 'list_repo_organization_variables', nor does it provide context about prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'List runner applications for a repository' with no additional behavioral traits. It does not state that it is read-only, whether it returns a list or single object, or any authentication or rate limit considerations. For a read operation like this, transparency is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence, which is concise but at the expense of informativeness. It does not waste words but also does not provide helpful detail. It could be improved by adding a brief clarification about the output or context. The front-loading is fine, but the content is minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of this tool (list operation with two parameters) and no output schema, the description could be more complete. It does not mention that the runner applications are operating system-specific binaries or that the response includes download URLs. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand what the tool returns or how to use the result. The tool name implies listing, but that is not enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but both parameter descriptions are trivial ('owner' and 'repo'). The tool description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides. For example, it could clarify that 'owner' is the repository owner's username or organization name. Without such enrichment, the description adds no value, meeting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'List runner applications for a repository'. It uses a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'github_actions_list_runner_applications_for_org', which lists for an org instead of a repo. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when-not to use it or any context about when this tool is appropriate. Sibling tools for org-level listing exist, but the description does not help the agent decide between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic function and does not mention that this is a read-only operation, whether pagination is required, or any permissions needed. The schema implies pagination but the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the name provides.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise but lacking detail. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, but the brevity results in missing context that would aid an AI agent in tool selection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what 'selected repositories' means, how to interpret the results, or what permissions are needed. The agent would need to infer from the name and schema, which is risky.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter described briefly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; for example, 'org' is simply described as 'org'. Since coverage is high, baseline is 3, and no extra value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list), resource (selected repositories), and scope (organization). However, it does not differentiate from sibling listing tools like github_actions_list_selected_repos_for_org_secret, which also list selected repositories for a different purpose. The name provides some distinction, but the description lacks explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_actions_set_selected_repositories_enabled_github_actions_organization or other listing tools. No context on prerequisites or typical scenarios is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits). The description is simply a restatement of the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is too minimal to be informative. More structure (e.g., listing parameters or return info) would improve.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should mention return format (array of runner groups) or note pagination. It lacks sufficient context for a list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions, so the description does not need to add parameter details. However, the tool description itself does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (self-hosted runner groups for an organization), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_self_hosted_runners_for_org or list_self_hosted_runner_groups_for_org.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other list tools). The description is minimal and does not provide context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations; description only mentions 'Set' implying mutation, but lacks details on side effects, required permissions, or what the body parameter should contain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is front-loaded and concise, but at the cost of missing essential details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and a freeform body, the description fails to provide critical context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are tautological ('enterprise' and 'Request body (JSON object)'); description adds no extra meaning, leaving agent unsure about body structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states action ('Set'), resource ('GitHub Actions cache retention limit'), and scope ('enterprise'), distinguishing it from sibling tools for organization and repository.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. organization/repository counterparts, nor prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Set' which implies mutation, but does not elaborate on effects, permissions required, or reversibility. The impact of setting the limit is not described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure. It front-loads the purpose but omits details that could be organized for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is minimal and does not fully cover the context needed for an agent. It does not explain the body parameter format, failure modes, or expected output (no output schema).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but parameter descriptions are just the parameter names. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The 'body' parameter is left as an opaque object with no further documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('GitHub Actions cache retention limit for a repository'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the scope ('for a repository'), though it does not contrast with similar tools for enterprise or organization.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No information is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as for setting limits at other scopes or for storage limits. There is no guidance on prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states a mutation action ('Set') without explaining side effects, permission requirements, or potential impacts on workflows. No additional behavioral context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 7 words, which is concise but overly sparse. It conveys the basic purpose but omits important details, making it efficient yet insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain the body object structure, return value, or usage constraints. For a mutation tool, more detail is necessary for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all three parameters (owner, repo, body) with descriptions, though minimal. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set'), resource ('private repo fork PR workflow settings'), and scope ('for a repository'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool for organization-level settings, though the tool name includes 'repository' which partially distinguishes it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the 'get' version or the organization-level counterpart. The description lacks any contextual advice on prerequisites or preferred use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states 'Set' implying mutation, but does not disclose whether it overwrites the existing runner list, what permissions are required, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficiently transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise but lacking structure. It fails to front-load key details or earn its place by being informative. Could be more efficient by including essential behavioral context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters (including a nested body) and no output schema, the description should clarify what 'Set' means and what the body expects. It does not, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, e.g., what the 'body' object should contain. Baseline is 3, and no extra value provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Set') and resource ('self-hosted runners in a group for an organization'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_self_hosted_runner_to_group_for_org' which adds a single runner, implying this tool sets the entire list. However, it could be more explicit about whether it replaces or merges.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add' or 'list'. It doesn't specify prerequisites, that it overwrites existing runner assignments, or when not to use it. The description provides no context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update' without clarifying that this is a write operation, potential side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. The body parameter is described only as 'Request body (JSON object)', lacking constraints or examples.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately concise for a tool with a self-explanatory name and schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's nature (an update mutation with a free-form body), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values (no output schema), expected body structure, and any behavioral notes. Sibling tools for create and delete likely have richer descriptions, leaving this one under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description itself adds no extra meaning to the parameters. It does not explain what 'hosted_runner_id' refers to or suggest valid properties for the body. The baseline of 3 is lowered because the description provides zero supplementary information beyond the schema's minimal labels.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'GitHub-hosted runner for an organization', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list. However, it omits what specific aspects can be updated, which is partly addressed by the input schema's body parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to update vs. create or delete). No prerequisites or context for usage are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, data freshness, or what constitutes an 'event'. The minimal description leaves uncertainty about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (3 words), but this is not necessarily a virtue. It under-specifies key details that could be included without verbosity. While it wastes no words, it sacrifices completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide context about the nature of the events, authentication requirements, and pagination. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with insufficient information to fully understand the tool's capabilities.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'per_page' and 'page' having detailed descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely states the parameters exist. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and the resource (public organization events). It is specific enough to distinguish from similar tools like 'github_activity_list_public_events' (global) and 'github_activity_list_org_events_for_authenticated_user' (authenticated), though it does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context on typical scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not mention that this is for public events only, nor compare to authenticated event retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that the tool is read-only, paginated, or how sorting parameters affect results. The input schema includes sort and direction, but the description does not explain their effect or default behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise but under-specified. It could include key behavioral details (e.g., pagination, sorting defaults) without becoming verbose. The current length feels insufficient given the tool's parameter richness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide context on return format, pagination behavior, and sorting semantics. It does not. The schema partially covers parameter descriptions, but overall behavioral context is missing, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters (sort, direction, per_page, page), providing clear meaning and valid values. The description adds no additional information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (repositories), and specifies the scope (starred by the authenticated user). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'github_activity_list_repos_starred_by_user' which targets a different user. However, it could be more precise about what is returned (e.g., repo metadata only).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that 'github_activity_list_repos_starred_by_user' should be used to list starred repos of another user, or that 'github_activity_list_stargazers_for_repo' lists users who starred a repo. The description lacks any usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does not mention pagination, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about what happens beyond the basic listing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At two words, it is extremely concise but sacrifices clarity. It is not 'appropriately sized' because it omits critical context. It is front-loaded but lacks substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the result format, scoping, or how it differs from similar list endpoints, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List stargazers', which identifies the action and resource. The tool name adds further context (for a repo). It differentiates from sibling tools like 'list_repos_starred_by_user' by implying it lists stargazers of a specific repo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. Among many activity-related siblings, the description does not clarify that this tool is for listing stargazers of a specific repo, which could cause confusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or what data is returned. The input schema includes pagination parameters, but the description does not mention that the results are paginated or any other side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at two words, which is efficient but lacks front-loading of key information. It does not provide any structure or additional details that would help an agent quickly understand the tool's scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what a 'watcher' is and what the return values look like. The description is too minimal to be considered complete, especially when compared to sibling tools that have longer descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters (owner, repo, per_page, page). The descriptions in the schema are sufficient to explain each parameter's meaning. The tool description adds no additional value beyond the schema, hence baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List watchers' combined with the tool name 'github_activity_list_watchers_for_repo' clearly indicates the action (list) and the resource (watchers for a repo). It distinguishes from siblings like github_activity_list_stargazers_for_repo as watchers and stargazers are different concepts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, there is no clarification on the difference between watchers and stargazers or when to use list_watchers_for_repo vs list_stargazers_for_repo. The description lacks any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits). The description carries the full burden but offers no additional insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that states the purpose without waste. However, it could include brief usage context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple action like starring a repo, the description is minimally complete given the name and schema. But it lacks output details and authentication context. No output schema is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but both parameter descriptions are minimal ('owner', 'repo'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Star a repository for the authenticated user' clearly identifies the action (star), resource (repository), and actor (authenticated user). It is specific but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'unstar_repo' or 'check_repo_is_starred'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., unstar, check star). No prerequisites or context are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It simply states 'Get a task by ID' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as whether the task exists, required permissions, error conditions, or return format. The description adds minimal value beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise. However, it is overly brief and lacks detail that would be helpful for an agent, such as distinguishing from siblings or specifying the task's context. It earns its place but does not provide enough value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. For a simple retrieval tool, it should at least mention the scope or common use cases. The presence of a sibling tool with a different signature means more context is needed to guide correct tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, with parameter 'task_id' described as 'task_id'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a task by ID' clearly states the action and resource. It is specific but does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'github_agent_tasks_get_task_by_repo_and_id', which also gets a task but with an additional repo identifier.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_agent_tasks_get_task_by_repo_and_id' or 'github_agent_tasks_list_tasks'. An explicit note about the lack of filtering or alternatives would help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose side effects (e.g., creating a real app), required permissions, or rate limits. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly concise, consisting of a single sentence that omits important details. It lacks structure and fails to convey necessary context beyond the basic purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description should explain the return value or success behavior. It does not. It also does not differentiate from many sibling tools, leaving the agent confused about appropriate usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no meaning to the 'code' parameter. The schema description is just 'code', which is vague and does not explain what the code represents (e.g., manifest code from a GitHub redirect).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a GitHub App from a manifest' clearly specifies the action (create) and the resource (GitHub App), distinguishing it from sibling tools like installation token creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., needing a manifest code), or context about the manifest process. The parameter description 'code' is not elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'delete', implying mutation. No disclosure of side effects (e.g., token becomes invalid immediately, impacts on app access), irreversibility, or success criteria. Without annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence – concise but under-specified. It does not waste words, but lacks structure to highlight key details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete operation with no output schema, the description should state what the response indicates (e.g., 204 No Content). It does not, leaving the agent unsure about success confirmation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it merely repeats 'client_id'. No explanation of what client_id represents or how to obtain it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Delete) and resource (app token), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like `github_apps_reset_token` or `github_apps_revoke_installation_access_token`, which also deal with token lifecycle.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The agent has no context to distinguish it from other token-related operations among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, rate limits, or that results are paginated (though pagination parameters exist in schema). The description lacks transparency beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and to the point, but it lacks structure (no paragraphs, bullet points, or emphasis). While concise, it could be more informative without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not indicate what the response looks like (list of accounts), that pagination is available, or how this tool relates to the stubbed variant. The description is minimal and leaves out important context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain the relationship between parameters or provide usage tips.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List accounts for a plan' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (accounts for a plan). However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'github_apps_list_accounts_for_plan_stubbed', missing an opportunity for differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the stubbed version. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring a valid plan_id, or context about the scope (e.g., marketplace plans, GitHub Apps).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'list accounts' without indicating idempotency, safety, or any side effects. The meaning of 'stubbed' is unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise but omits important context like the meaning of 'stubbed'. It is not front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description fails to explain what 'stubbed' means or how this tool relates to its non-stubbed sibling. This gap makes it less complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List) and resource (accounts for a plan). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'github_apps_list_accounts_for_plan' or explain the meaning of '(stubbed)', which limits clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its non-stubbed alternative. The description lacks context about the use case or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without revealing read-only nature, pagination behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it is too brief and omits critical context; conciseness here sacrifices completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of a stubbed sibling and lack of output schema, the description should clarify what subscriptions are and how this tool differs. It fails to provide enough context for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters (per_page and page), including links to pagination docs. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (subscriptions for the authenticated user). However, it does not specify what type of subscriptions (e.g., GitHub Marketplace, app installations) nor distinguish from the stubbed sibling tool, which could lead to confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the stubbed version. There is no mention of prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or context for invoking this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or the specific meaning of 'scoped'. The agent is left without critical context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), which saves space but sacrifices informativeness. While it is not verbose, it could afford an additional sentence to clarify scope and usage without becoming overly lengthy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, and the minimal schema descriptions, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to understand the tool's scope, purpose differentiation, or expected behavior. Important details are missing, such as what the body parameter should contain or how the token will be scoped.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides basic descriptions for both parameters (client_id and body), achieving 100% coverage. However, the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline expectation but does not compensate for lack of parameter usage context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a scoped access token' clearly states the action and resource, but fails to differentiate from similar tools like github_apps_create_installation_access_token or github_apps_reset_token, leaving ambiguity about what 'scoped' implies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, preferred use cases, or situations where other token tools would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description is too brief to assist an agent in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, consisting of a single sentence. While concise, it is under-specified and fails to provide important context. It earns a middle score as it is not verbose but lacks substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description should explain what the response contains (e.g., list of annotations with properties). It does not, leaving the agent with incomplete information about the tool's output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, with descriptions for all five parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List check run annotations' clearly states the verb and resource. It specifies that the tool lists annotations for a check run, which is distinct from other checks list tools like 'List check runs for a ref' or 'List check runs for a suite'. However, it does not explicitly highlight this differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Given the many sibling tools, this lack of guidance reduces usability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Rerequest', which implies a mutation, but does not explain what happens (e.g., triggers a new check suite run), side effects, or idempotency. This is insufficient for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (4 words) but lacks necessary detail. While front-loaded, it sacrifices clarity and context, making it merely adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation, no annotations, no output schema, relevant sibling tools), the description is too brief. An agent would need more context to use it correctly, such as what a check suite is and the effect of rerequesting.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% but the descriptions are just parameter names (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'check_suite_id'), adding no extra meaning. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 due to high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Rerequest a check suite' clearly states the action and resource, using a verb that is standard in the GitHub Checks API. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'github_checks_rerequest_run' which performs a similar action on a check run rather than a suite.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like 'github_checks_rerequest_run' or 'github_checks_create_suite'. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether pagination is fully supported, or any authentication or rate limit requirements. The description simply restates the tool's function without behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words, making it concise. However, it lacks structure (e.g., no separation of usage hints or parameter details). While it is brief, it does not provide enough value to earn a higher score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what is returned (e.g., a list of accepted assignments with their details). It does not do so. Additionally, it does not mention pagination behavior or any constraints, leaving the agent with incomplete information to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The schema has brief descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'assignment_id' for the ID, and standard pagination text for page and per_page), but the tool description adds no further semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List accepted assignments for an assignment', which clearly indicates the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like github_classroom_list_assignments_for_a_classroom or github_classroom_get_assignment_grades, which might cause confusion. The tool name itself is more descriptive, but the description adds no distinguishing context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It says 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but fails to mention idempotency, authentication requirements, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a reliable tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it does not add value beyond the tool name. It is not structured to front-load critical information, and every word earns its place only in the most minimal sense.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return value (e.g., a code scanning analysis object). It does not, leaving the agent unaware of what data to expect. The presence of siblings like get_sarif and get_alert adds confusion without further clarification.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with basic descriptions. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'code scanning analysis', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_analysis, list_recent_analyses, etc. However, it does not specify the scope or context of the analysis, such as whether it includes SARIF or alert details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_recent_analyses or get_alert. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, making it hard for an agent to decide between similar operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a summary but omits whether it requires authentication, has side effects, or is read-only. This lack of detail reduces transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficient but borderline under-specified. It fits the conciseness criterion but loses points for not providing more useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should explain what the summary contains (e.g., results, status). It does not, and compared to similar tools, it lacks contextual completeness for an agent to reliably interpret the output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage but parameter descriptions are merely the parameter names. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'summary of a CodeQL variant analysis'. It is clear about what the tool does, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like `github_code_scanning_get_variant_analysis_repo_task`.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-support information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral details. It only states 'list instances' but omits important traits like pagination (implied by page/per_page parameters in schema), the ability to filter by ref or pr, and the nature of the response (list of instances). The tool's behavior is under-disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise but lacks substance for a tool with 7 parameters. It is front-loaded but too minimal to be helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the tool's place in the workflow, what 'instances' are, or how to use the optional parameters effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., ref vs pr).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'instances of a code scanning alert', distinguishing it from related tools like 'get_alert' (single alert) and 'list_alerts_for_repo' (all alerts). However, it does not clarify what 'instances' means (e.g., occurrences across different locations or refs), leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no indication that an alert_number is required, and no hints about optional parameters like ref or pr. It lacks explicit usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It only states 'Upload an analysis as SARIF data' but omits side effects (e.g., replacing existing SARIF), required permissions, or rate limits. This is insufficient for an action-oriented tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with 7 words, which is concise but lacks essential details. It is not wasteful, but could be improved by adding brief context without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should be more thorough. It does not explain the format of the body (SARIF JSON), whether it overwrites existing data, or any prerequisites. The tool is incomplete for a reliable agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), but the descriptions are trivial (just parameter names). The body parameter is an object without further explanation. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Upload') and the resource ('analysis as SARIF data'), indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like get_sarif or create_variant_analysis by specifying the upload action and SARIF format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other code scanning tools (e.g., get_sarif, update_alert). The description does not provide context or alternatives, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only repeats 'Delete a code security configuration' without disclosing irreversibility, permission requirements, or side effects on attached repositories.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence, direct and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly improved by adding essential context without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and simple parameters, the description lacks critical context about the operation's scope, irreversibility, and relationship to sibling tools (e.g., detach_configuration). Inadequate for safe agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but parameter descriptions are just the parameter names ('org', 'configuration_id'). The description adds no extra meaning about what constitutes a configuration_id or how to obtain it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Delete) and resource (a code security configuration), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create or update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like detach_configuration. No context about prerequisites or scenarios where deletion is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist. The description only says 'detach', implying removal, but does not disclose if the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. Critical behavioral context is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely terse (5 words). While concise, it sacrifices essential information; not every sentence earns its place as it provides minimal utility.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, few parameters, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about which configurations, prerequisites, and results. It is insufficient for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 1 parameter 'org' with description 'org' (100% coverage). The description does not add meaningful context beyond the schema, meeting baseline for complete schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action 'detach' and resource 'configurations' with target 'repositories'. It implicitly differentiates from 'attach_configuration' sibling via opposite verb. However, it fails to explicitly mention 'code security', leaving the type of configurations ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to detach vs attach or update), nor any prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, any authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The schema includes pagination params, but the description fails to clarify that results are paginated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not include a note about pagination or result format. Given the complexity, it is adequately short but not optimally informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for a list endpoint with pagination. No output schema is provided, so the description should clarify the return type (array of configurations) and pagination behavior. It fails to provide this essential context, leaving the agent to infer from the input schema alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the purpose of 'before' and 'after' cursors or how they interact with pagination.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'code security configurations' for an enterprise, distinguishing it from organization-level tools. However, it does not explicitly mention that it returns a list or that it supports pagination, which could be inferred from schema but lacks clarity for differentiation from single-configuration endpoints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_single_configuration_for_enterprise or get_default_configurations_for_enterprise. The description is a bare statement without context on selection or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'update,' implying a write operation, but does not explain if it's a partial update, required permissions, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (5 words), which may be appropriate for a simple tool, but it is under-specified for a security configuration update. Structure is minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the body can contain, what the update entails, or what the result looks like. Important behavioral details are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions, but the descriptions are mere parameter names (e.g., 'org'). The description adds no extra meaning. The 'body' parameter is a nested object with no defined properties, so the description could have clarified acceptable fields but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (update) and resource (code security configuration), distinguishing it from siblings like create, delete, or get. However, it does not specify what parts of the configuration can be updated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create, delete). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create or update' but does not explain that secrets are encrypted, that the operation may be idempotent, or what the response contains. Essential behavioral traits are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, but it is too terse and omits important information. It earns its place minimally; however, some sentences that could clarify usage are missing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values. It does not. The tool is moderately complex (creating/updating secrets), and with no annotations, the description is too incomplete for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the property names; for 'body' it merely repeats 'Request body (JSON object)' without further detail. No value added beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create or update' and the resource 'organization secret'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_actions_create_or_update_org_secret or github_dependabot_create_or_update_org_secret, which have identical descriptions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context such as encryption requirements or permission needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, whether active codespaces only are returned, or pagination behavior beyond schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence) but lacks structure. It does not front-load key details beyond the name, and while not verbose, it could be more informative without added length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a simple list operation, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values or pagination context, though schema covers parameters. With no output schema, more context would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for per_page, page, and repository_id.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists codespaces for the authenticated user. While it distinguishes from create/delete tools, it does not differentiate from similar list tools like github_codespaces_list_in_organization or github_codespaces_list_in_repository_for_authenticated_user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple list tools for codespaces, and the description does not specify context or exclude cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only states 'List secrets' without disclosing that it is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, or that it returns a list of secret names and metadata. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence. While it is front-loaded, it is too sparse and omits important context like scope differentiation or pagination, making it minimally acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is present, so the description should explain return values (e.g., secret names, metadata). It does not, leaving the agent without context on what data is returned. Also missing authentication or usage notes, making it incomplete for a list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for per_page and page parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting baseline expectations without adding value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'secrets for the authenticated user', clearly indicating action and scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_codespaces_list_org_secrets or github_codespaces_list_repo_secrets, which list secrets at different scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., org/repo secret listing). The description lacks context for selecting this specific tool among similar codespaces list secrets tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. 'Get' implies read-only, but no additional behavioral details (e.g., data freshness, rate limits, aggregation) are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at 4 words, but under-specified. Could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given complexity (many sibling metrics tools, no output schema, no annotations), description omits critical context like output format, time range, and whether metrics are historical or real-time.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter, but description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name 'enterprise'. Baseline 3 applies as coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get Copilot enterprise usage metrics' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'enterprise' level, though it doesn't differentiate from the one-day variant.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like organization-level or one-day metrics. With many similar sibling tools, explicit usage conditions are missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action and resource, without mentioning if the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the organization has no Copilot data. This is insufficient for a safe agent invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks essential details. While it is front-loaded with the core purpose, the brevity comes at the cost of missing contextual and behavioral information, making it merely adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description should provide context about return values, pagination behavior, and error scenarios. It does not explain what kind of metrics are returned (e.g., active users, suggestions accepted) or how to interpret the results, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema are fairly detailed (e.g., ISO 8601 format for dates, pagination links). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get Copilot metrics for an organization,' which is a specific verb and resource. However, among numerous sibling tools like github_copilot_copilot_organization_usage_metrics and github_copilot_copilot_metrics_for_team, it does not specify what distinguishes this tool from similar ones, such as the type of metrics (e.g., usage, engagement) or time frame.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_copilot_copilot_organization_usage_metrics or github_copilot_copilot_metrics_for_team. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as required permissions or whether the organization must have Copilot enabled.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description lacks any behavioral disclosures such as data freshness, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The minimal description leaves the agent unaware of side effects or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one phrase) and front-loaded, but it is so brief that it sacrifices informativeness. It is concise but not sufficiently structured to convey needed details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is for metrics with no output schema, the description should specify what 'usage metrics' entails (e.g., per-user breakdown, time range). It lacks this context, making it incomplete for an agent to understand the return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single required parameter 'org'. However, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter name. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter, but no extra context is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Copilot organization users usage metrics'. The naming distinguishes it from siblings like 'github_copilot_copilot_organization_usage_metrics' and 'github_copilot_copilot_users_usage_metrics', though not explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other Copilot metrics tools. The description does not mention context or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description only states the action (delete). It does not disclose required permissions, side effects, error conditions, or reversibility. For a destructive operation, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (two words) but lacks structure or additional context. While not verbose, it neither wastes words nor provides more than bare minimum.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, success conditions, or error handling. It only states the action, leaving the agent with incomplete information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema covers all 3 parameters (owner, repo, secret_name) with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter names, but baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Delete a repository secret' – verb and resource are explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar tools like github_actions_delete_repo_secret; mentioning 'Dependabot' would improve sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_dependabot_delete_org_secret or github_actions_delete_repo_secret.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, pagination, authentication requirements, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence) but lacks necessary detail. It is under-specified for a complex tool with 15 parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (15 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not mention filtering, sorting, pagination, or return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List) and resource (Dependabot alerts) with scope (enterprise). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_alerts_for_org or list_alerts_for_repo, which have similar descriptions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on enterprise-specific use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description omits behavioral traits such as pagination (though the schema includes `per_page` and `page`), read-only nature, or any potential side effects. With no annotations, the description should disclose that this is a safe read operation and how results are delivered. It fails to do so.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence, but it sacrifices informativeness. It is not front-loaded with critical details like scope or output, making it less useful despite its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of secrets) and any important context. It does not, leaving the agent to guess the return value and behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter's purpose is already documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List organization secrets' clearly states the action (list) and resource (organization secrets), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like `github_dependabot_get_org_secret`, though the verb 'list' vs 'get' implies the difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this lists all secrets for an organization, while `github_dependabot_get_org_secret` retrieves a single secret. The agent must infer usage from sibling tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or what the response looks like. With no annotations provided, the description should explain that it returns a paginated list of secrets, but it fails to do so.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, which is concise. However, it lacks important information, so it is not optimally efficient. The structure is acceptable but does not earn full marks for value density.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not mention pagination, the return type (list), or any prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents the parameters adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'repository secrets'. It is easily understood, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_dependabot_get_repo_secret or github_dependabot_list_org_secrets, which operate on similar resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain that this lists all secrets for a repo, while github_dependabot_get_repo_secret retrieves a single secret. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is destructive, requires authentication, rate limits, or idempotency. This is a significant gap for a create operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, very concise, but lacks detail. Conciseness is good, but it sacrifices completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, and the description does not explain what a snapshot contains, whether it overwrites existing snapshots, or any side effects. Given the complexity of dependency snapshots, the description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), but the body parameter is described only as 'Request body (JSON object)' without structure. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a snapshot of dependencies for a repository', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_dependency_graph_diff_range and github_dependency_graph_export_sbom that operate on snapshots or exports.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., diff_range for comparing snapshots, export_sbom for exporting). Not mentions of prerequisites or edge cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior, required permissions, or response structure beyond what the schema implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words, achieving maximum conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of enterprise team management and the presence of pagination parameters, the description lacks context on return format, permissions, and usage patterns. It is insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly without additional inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions for enterprise and enterprise_team are minimal ('enterprise', 'enterprise-team'), and the tool description adds no clarification (e.g., slug vs ID). Per_page and page have detailed schema descriptions, so the description adds no value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List members in an enterprise team' clearly identifies the verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like add/get/remove. However, it could be more specific about scope (e.g., pagination).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_membership or bulk operations. The description does not mention query context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description offers zero behavioral information such as permissions needed, rate limits, or side effects. The minimal description does not compensate for the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence that is direct and to the point. However, it could be improved by adding a bit more context without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing critical details: no output schema, no explanation of required permissions, unclear 'body' structure. For a mutation tool, the description is insufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which itself has trivial property descriptions ('gist_id', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The 'body' object has no defined properties, and the description does not clarify what it should contain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a gist comment' uses a specific verb 'Create' and clearly identifies the resource 'gist comment'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete, update, get, and list comments, so purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative comment operations. It does not specify any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List gist comments' without revealing behaviors like pagination, authentication requirements, or that it returns a list for a specific gist. This is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at only three words, which is efficient but lacks structure and front-loading of key information. It could benefit from a brief explanation of the resource scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, any limitations, or the context of gist comments. A more complete description would help the agent invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (gist_id, per_page, page). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List gist comments' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (gist comments), indicating it retrieves comments from a gist. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like github_gists_list_commits or github_gists_get_comment, which also list related entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or suggestions for sibling tools that might be more appropriate for specific use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description provides no behavioral details beyond the action of listing. No mention of pagination (though schema includes per_page and page), ordering, or what constitutes a commit in this context. With no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short, but not front-loaded with key information. No wasted words, but also no valuable content beyond the name. Could be longer to include essential context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return value structure, usage patterns, or limitations. It fails to do so, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 3 parameters, so description does not need to add meaning. The description adds no extra context beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'List' and resource 'gist commits'. The resource is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'github_gists_list' (list gists) or 'github_gists_list_comments', though it could be more explicit about listing version history.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_gists_get_revision' (get a single revision) or 'github_gists_list' (list all gists). The description lacks context about prerequisite actions or use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, authentication requirements, or whether private gists are included. The schema hints at pagination via 'per_page' and 'page', but this is not highlighted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise but overly sparse. It fits in one sentence, but more detail could be included without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and the presence of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the return format, ordering, or any constraints, making it insufficient for informed tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, leaving no gaps. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists gists for a specific user, which is distinct from listing the authenticated user's gists or public gists. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like github_gists_list or github_gists_list_public.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this tool requires a username and is for fetching another user's gists, unlike other list gists tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., removing from starred list), authentication needs, or idempotency behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is short (4 words), it omits critical information. Conciseness should not come at the expense of completeness; the description is undersized for an agent to use effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and minimal description, the tool definition is incomplete. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or other behavioral details needed for proper invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage but the parameter description 'gist_id' is tautological. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, such as its purpose or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Unstar a gist' uses a specific verb (unstar) and resource (gist), clearly indicating the action. Among sibling tools like github_gists_star and github_gists_check_is_starred, it is distinct as the opposite action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_gists_star or github_gists_list_starred. There are no context cues, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update', implying a mutable operation, but does not describe whether the update is atomic, reversible, requires specific permissions, or what the response indicates. Important details about side effects are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words. It directly conveys the purpose and is front-loaded. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an update operation with a flexible nested body and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error states, or constraints. Important context such as what fields are updatable or required is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no extra meaning beyond parameter names. The 'body' parameter is described generically as 'Request body (JSON object)' without specifying valid fields or structure. For a nested object, this underspecification limits usability.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'a hosted compute network configuration for an organization'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list, which cover other CRUD operations. However, it does not specify what aspects of the network configuration can be updated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create, delete, or get. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description does not mention whether labels are added (non-destructive) or replaced, nor any side effects, permissions, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so description should explain return values or effects. It does not. Also, the body parameter remains vague. The tool's mutation nature warrants more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but descriptions are minimal (owner, repo, issue_number, body). The description adds no value beyond parameter names; 'body' as 'Request body (JSON object)' lacks structure guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Add labels to an issue' clearly states the action and resource. It is straightforward but does not differentiate from sibling tools like set_labels or create_label.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_labels or remove_label. Lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits: what exactly happens when adding a sub-issue, whether it creates a new issue or links existing, side effects, or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise but at the expense of necessary detail. The description is front-loaded but incomplete for effective use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the 'body' parameter (nested object with no defined properties) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to format the body or what the result will be.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions, though minimal). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, especially for the 'body' parameter which is an untyped object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add sub-issue' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like issues_remove_sub_issue or issues_list_sub_issues, but is vague about whether it creates a new issue or links an existing one.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like issues_create or issues_add_labels. No context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behaviors like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., 404 if issue not found), rate limits, or that it returns a single issue object. The description is too brief to be transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (3 words), which is efficient but may be too terse. It is front-loaded with the key action, but could include more helpful context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context about return values, error scenarios, or related operations. It only says 'Get an issue', leaving the agent without guidance on what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters (owner, repo, issue_number) are described in the input schema with basic descriptions. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for a fully covered schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action 'Get' and the resource 'issue', clearly indicating it retrieves a specific issue. It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_issues_create or github_issues_list, though it could specify that it fetches by issue number.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_issues_list for multiple issues, or github_pulls_get for pull requests). The description lacks context for appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get parent issue', implying a read operation, but fails to mention whether it requires authentication, returns null if no parent, or any side effects. The description is too sparse.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at three words, but may be too terse. It lacks structure or front-loading of essential context. Could be expanded without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so description should hint at return value or behavior. It does not explain what is returned (e.g., the parent issue object) or handle edge cases. Incomplete for a retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and schema descriptions (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'issue_number'). No enrichment of parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get parent issue' clearly indicates the action and resource, implying retrieval of the parent issue for a given issue. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like github_issues_get, which also retrieves issues. The specific context of 'parent issue' (e.g., sub-issues) is implied but not elaborated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_issues_get or github_issues_add_sub_issue. Doesn't specify prerequisites (issue must have a parent) or conditions for appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states a read operation but gives no details on pagination, rate limits, or side effects. It does not explain what 'timeline events' entail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks substance. While not verbose, it does not provide enough information to be considered 'appropriately sized' for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not describe the return value, event types, or any important context like whether it includes all events or just timeline-specific ones.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify the role of per_page and page for pagination or what values are valid.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List timeline events for an issue' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (timeline events for an issue). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_issues_list_events, which could cause confusion about when to use each.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as github_issues_list_events or github_issues_list_events_for_repo. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that the tool is read-only, returns a list, or supports pagination and filtering via parameters. The behavior is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (two words), but this underspecification reduces its helpfulness. It is not verbose, but it sacrifices clarity and completeness. Every sentence should earn its place; here, there is only a fragment.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and the complexity of list tools (pagination, filtering), the description is insufficient. It does not mention that results are paginated, that milestones belong to a specific repository, or how output is structured. It should at least state 'List milestones for a repository'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the purpose of parameters like 'state', 'sort', or 'direction' beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List milestones' clearly states the action and resource. It uses a specific verb and resource, and while it doesn't explicitly mention the repository scope, the required parameters 'owner' and 'repo' in the schema imply it. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'get_milestone' or 'list_labels_for_milestone'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_issues_get_milestone' for a single milestone or 'github_issues_list_labels_for_milestone' for labels. The description lacks any context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, that results may be paginated (though implied by `per_page` and `page` parameters), or any rate-limiting considerations. The description is too sparse to provide meaningful transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (2 words), which is efficient but at the cost of clarity and completeness. It does not front-load critical information; it simply restates the tool name. While brevity is valued, it should not sacrifice necessary context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should explain the return format (e.g., a list of sub-issues, their properties, pagination details). It does not. The description is too minimal to be considered complete for an agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (each parameter has a description), but those descriptions are trivial (e.g., 'owner' for owner, 'issue_number' for issue_number). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. According to the rubric, high schema coverage (>80%) sets a baseline of 3, and the description does not elevate it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List sub-issues' clearly indicates the tool's action (list) and resource (sub-issues). It distinguishes from siblings like `github_issues_list` which lists issues at a repo level. However, it could be more specific by mentioning that it lists sub-issues of a given parent issue, which is implied by the `issue_number` parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `github_issues_list` or `github_issues_add_sub_issue`. The description lacks any context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, forcing the agent to infer usage from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely restates the name without explaining side effects (e.g., overwriting existing values), authorization needs, or limitations. This is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) but lacks necessary detail. It achieves brevity at the expense of completeness, making it minimally adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (nested object body parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the required format or behavior of the body parameter, nor what the agent should expect as a result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and resource ('issue field values'), which conveys the core purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_issues_add_issue_field_values, which perform similar operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to set vs add field values). The description lacks context on prerequisites or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The description does not mention that this tool replaces all existing labels with the provided set, which is a critical behavioral detail. Without this, the agent may assume it adds labels instead of replacing them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (5 words) but lacks essential information. While brevity is good, it omits critical details about behavior and usage, making it minimally viable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the sibling set (add labels, remove label, remove all labels), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the replacement behavior, the required body format, or any prerequisites. No output schema exists, so more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage for parameters, but descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'issue_number', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, particularly for the 'body' parameter which expects a labels structure. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'set labels' on the resource 'an issue', but does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'github_issues_add_labels' (which appends labels) or 'github_issues_remove_all_labels'. A higher score would require explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'github_issues_add_labels' or 'github_issues_remove_label'. An agent could confuse this tool with add, leading to unintended label replacement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Delete', implying a destructive operation. However, it does not disclose what happens to the archive (e.g., permanent deletion, whether it can be undone), required permissions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary information. It is concise and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple deletion tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but lacks critical context such as prerequisites, effects, or that it operates for the authenticated user (though implied by name).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter 'migration_id' with a self-describing description 'migration_id'. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how to obtain or format this ID, reducing its utility.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a user migration archive' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (user migration archive). It is specific and easy to understand, but does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'github_migrations_delete_archive_for_org'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., canceling an import or using the org version). There are no exclusions or context for proper use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only mentions 'Download'. It does not disclose side effects (none expected), return format (likely binary), authentication needs, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence), which is efficient but lacks necessary detail. It is not verbose, but does not earn its place with informative content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complex sibling list and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits information about the download process, potential errors, and result format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both params have descriptions), but these are trivial (org, migration_id). The description adds no additional meaning or context about what these values represent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Download' and the resource 'organization migration archive'. It distinguishes its purpose from other migration tools like delete_archive or get_status, but does not explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when a migration is completed, or if archive is available). Prerequisites and exclusions are missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Download', omitting behavioral details like response type (binary stream, URL, redirect), whether the archive is a one-time download, or any side effects. The agent cannot infer usage implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but this brevity leads to missing crucial details. It is concise but sacrifices completeness, making it barely adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should explain what a 'user migration archive' is and what the tool returns. It fails to provide this, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is one parameter, 'migration_id', with schema description simply repeating its name. The tool description adds no extra meaning, leaving the agent to infer that it is a unique identifier. While schema coverage is 100%, the lack of context (e.g., format, source) limits added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Download a user migration archive' uses a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling migration tools like 'get_status' or 'list' by indicating a download action. It aligns with the tool name's 'get_archive' and 'for_authenticated_user' scope, but could be more specific about the archive format or purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'github_migrations_download_archive_for_org' or 'github_migrations_get_status_for_authenticated_user'. The description lacks context on prerequisites, required permissions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, or any other behavioral traits beyond the generic 'get status'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise but lacking structure. It does not front-load critical information beyond the basic purpose. Acceptable but minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, and the description fails to explain what the response contains. Given the complexity of migration tracking and numerous siblings, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with basic descriptions that mirror parameter names. The description adds no additional meaning or guidance on how to obtain 'org' or 'migration_id'. Baseline score due to high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses verb 'Get' and resource 'organization migration status', clearly indicating the action and scope. However, it lacks specificity on what 'status' entails or differentiation from similar tools like 'get_import_status'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many migration-related siblings (start_for_org, list_for_org, cancel_import, etc.), the description provides no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the function without mentioning side effects, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or return format. For a read tool, minimal disclosure is acceptable, but it lacks any detail beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks detail that could be added without much length. It is not overly verbose but also not sufficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what is returned (e.g., list of repositories with fields) and any limitations. It fails to do so, leaving the agent uninformed about the result structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description (migration_id, per_page, page). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already informs the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List repositories for a user migration' clearly states the action (list) and resource (repositories for a user migration). It matches the tool name. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'github_migrations_list_repos_for_org', which lists repos for an org migration. The scope 'for a user migration' is implicit but not explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list repos for org migration), no prerequisites, and no context for pagination. It is a single sentence with no usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'List' which implies a read operation, but does not confirm idempotency, safety, side effects, or any potential limitations. The lack of detail leaves the agent uninformed about what to expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action. There is no extraneous information, and every word serves the purpose of stating what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, and the description provides no information about return values, pagination, or filtering. For a list operation, the agent needs to know what data is returned and whether it is paginated. The description is too minimal to fully inform the agent's decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter description for 'enterprise' is simply 'enterprise', which is tautological and adds no meaning beyond the schema property name. The description does not explain the format of the enterprise identifier or any constraints, failing to compensate for the schema's minimal documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'List' and the resource 'OIDC custom property inclusions' for an enterprise. The verb and resource are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools for other entities like orgs. However, it does not clarify what 'inclusions' specifically refers to, which could be ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., listing for org or create/delete variants). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without describing side effects (e.g., permissions needed, irreversibility, impact on team members). For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one short phrase), but lacks a complete sentence or structured information. While front-loaded, it could be more informative without significant length increase.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 annotations or output schema, the description fails to provide essential context: what a security manager team is, what the operation does concretely, and how org/team_slug relate. This leaves the agent needing additional knowledge to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, but descriptions are just parameter names ('org', 'team_slug'), adding no additional meaning. The tool description also does not clarify parameter roles. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add a security manager team' clearly states the action (add) and resource (security manager team). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'github_orgs_remove_security_manager_team' and 'github_orgs_list_security_manager_teams'. However, the brief phrasing lacks specificity on the exact operation, such as whether it creates a new team or assigns an existing team to a security manager role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, required permissions, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. With many sibling tools related to organization security, the absence of usage context limits effective selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Create' with no mention of idempotency, side effects, required permissions, or return behavior. This is insufficient for an AI agent to understand implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (4 words) but lacks informative content. While brevity is valued, it sacrifices helpfulness. A slightly longer description would improve clarity without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 2 parameters and no output schema, so the description should provide more context. It fails to explain the purpose of the storage record, how it relates to artifact deployment, or any constraints on the body field. The description is too minimal to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% field descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema labels 'org' and 'Request body (JSON object)'. It does not explain the body structure or expected keys.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('artifact metadata storage record'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks context on what exactly an artifact metadata storage record is and does not distinguish from related tools like 'github_orgs_create_artifact_deployment_record'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The description offers no context about the workflow or relationship with other tools like 'github_orgs_list_artifact_storage_records'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral details like whether the operation is idempotent, destructive, or requires special permissions. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single sentence. While not verbose, it is adequately front-loaded. However, it could include a bit more detail without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the expected response, side effects, or error conditions, making it insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as how to structure the body object or what fields are expected. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (create or update) and resource (custom properties for an organization). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_organization_definitions and delete_organization_definition. However, the term 'custom properties' is slightly vague and could benefit from specifying that it pertains to organization custom property definitions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the separate tool for organization values. There is no mention of prerequisites, idempotency, or context for when a create versus update is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description only says 'delete' without disclosing side effects, irreversibility, or impact on existing issues, leaving the agent uninformed about behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter clarification, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior, prerequisites, and effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema parameter descriptions are tautological ('org', 'issue_field_id'), and the tool description adds no additional meaning to these parameters, failing to clarify their purpose or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'delete' and resource 'issue field' with scope 'for an organization', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, list, and update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites, permissions, or scenarios where deletion is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose whether this is a read operation, pagination behavior, or potential side effects. The schema lists pagination params but the description fails to mention that it returns paginated results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence) but lacks necessary detail. It is concise but at the expense of completeness. Could benefit from additional context without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and no annotations. The description is too minimal to fully inform an agent about the tool's behavior, return format, or how pagination works. For a history tool, users would benefit from knowing what is included in the history items.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 params. However, descriptions for 'org' and 'ruleset_id' are trivial (just repeating the parameter name). 'per_page' and 'page' have helpful pagination context. The overall description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get organization ruleset history' clearly states the verb (get) and resource (organization ruleset history). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_org_ruleset_version' by focusing on history, but could be more explicit about what history entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_orgs_get_org_ruleset_version' or 'github_repos_get_org_ruleset'. Missing context on prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as pagination, sorting, permissions, or what the response includes. For a listing tool, these are important but omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded, which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary details. It is not verbose, but could be more informative without being overly long.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the tool definition is incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination, or any constraints, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage for parameters is 100%, but the descriptions in the schema are minimal (just 'org' and 'subject_digest'). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List) and the resource (artifact storage records). It is specific enough to indicate what the tool does, but does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like github_orgs_list_artifact_deployment_records.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states what it does (list) without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks any structure or additional detail such as bullet points or usage hints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description does not provide sufficient context about return format, pagination, or typical use cases, leaving gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List outside collaborators for an organization' clearly specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'outside collaborators', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_members or list_public_members.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_members, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits like pagination, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response structure. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not front-load critical details. Appropriate length but could be improved with more informative content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With three parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not mention pagination (though params hint at it), what 'public members' means, or the expected response. Incomplete for an effective agent decision.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists public organization members, which is a specific resource and action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like github_orgs_list_members, which lists all members. The verb+resource is clear but lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_orgs_list_members. There is no mention of prerequisites or when NOT to use it. The description provides no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'Remove', implying a destructive mutation, but lacks details on reversibility, permission requirements, or side effects. The agent is left unaware of the operation's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, straightforward sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not cover return values, error states, or behavioral expectations, leaving the agent without essential context for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides minimal descriptions ('org', 'username', 'role_id'), and the description adds no further meaning. Despite 100% schema coverage, the descriptions are nearly tautological, offering no semantic enhancement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Remove' and the resource 'organization role' targeting 'a user'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'assign_user_to_org_role' and 'revoke_all_org_roles_user', but could be slightly more precise about what is removed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'revoke_all_org_roles_user' or 'revoke_org_role_team'). There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer correct usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only implies a mutation ('Set') but discloses no behavioral traits such as whether the operation is additive or replacing, required permissions, side effects, or error conditions. This is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but too brief for a complex operation. It could include more structured information without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine how to construct the request body, what the expected response is, or how the tool interacts with related settings. This makes it difficult to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. However, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's minimal descriptions ('org' and 'Request body (JSON object)'). It does not clarify what the body should contain, which is crucial for a mutation tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set selected repositories for immutable releases enforcement' clearly states the action (Set) and resource (selected repositories) within the context of immutable releases. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'enable_selected_repository_immutable_releases_organization' which operates on single repos, leaving room for ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about the effect (e.g., whether it replaces or appends to existing selections). This is minimal and insufficient for an agent to decide correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must convey behavioral traits. Only states 'update', implying mutation, but does not disclose permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what exactly gets updated beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action and resource, which is concise. However, it is too brief and under-specified for a mutation tool with multiple parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and description does not explain return values or behavior. With 3 parameters, including a complex body object, the description lacks completeness to properly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add any meaning beyond the schema parameter names and trivial descriptions. Body parameter lacks guidance on expected structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (update), resource (issue field), and scope (for an organization). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create or delete issue field, but the purpose is specific enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create or delete issue field. Lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., that it is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior). The description merely states the action without additional context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence) and concise, but its brevity limits usefulness. While not verbose, the sentence is marginal in value and could be improved with more detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what the response contains, pagination, or error conditions. For a list operation, more context is needed for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides detailed descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter info. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'packages', and specifies the scope as 'authenticated user's namespace'. It is clear but does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_packages_for_organization or list_packages_for_user, which are similar endpoints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other package listing tools). There is no mention of prerequisites, permissions, or context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It provides no behavioral insights such as authentication needs, rate limits, or response contents. The schema describes parameters well, but the tool description itself lacks any behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at 4 words, but it is too minimal for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations. It front-loads the purpose but sacrifices necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the operation type (read), pagination support (implied by params but not stated), and response format. It leaves significant gaps for effective tool selection and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation for a fully documented schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'List packages for a user' clearly states verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_packages_for_authenticated_user and list_packages_for_organization by specifying 'for a user', though the distinction is mostly implicit. No extra details about the listing scope or constraints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_packages_for_authenticated_user or list_packages_for_organization. The description does not mention prerequisites, required authentication, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning that it is a mutation, what happens on success/ failure, or any side effects. The vague 'body' parameter is not explained, leaving critical behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded, which is good for readability. However, the brevity sacrifices informativeness; some additional detail would improve completeness without being overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of GitHub projects (many sibling tools, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what an item is, how to find the project number, or the required format of the request body. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter names and minimal descriptions. For example, the 'body' parameter is not explained in terms of expected structure or required fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Add' and resource 'item to user owned project', indicating the action and scope. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes an 'item' (e.g., issue, pull request, note) or how it differs from sibling tools like adding fields or draft items, which slightly reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_projects_add_item_for_org or github_projects_create_draft_item_for_authenticated_user. The description lacks context on prerequisites, limitations, or use cases, making it difficult for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 merely states 'Get', implying a read operation, but offers no details on permissions, side effects, or what happens if inputs are invalid. This is insufficient for safe agent decision-making.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is directly front-loaded. Every word is necessary and there is no extraneous information. It achieves maximum conciseness by efficiently conveying the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema and the tool is a getter, the description does not explain the return value or how to interpret results. It lacks context on how to find project_number or field_id, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema description coverage is 100%, each parameter description is just the parameter name (e.g., 'username', 'project_number'), offering no additional meaning. The tool description does not clarify the parameters either, failing to add value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'project field' with scope 'for user', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like github_projects_get_field_for_org. It is specific but does not define what a project field is, though the name and schema imply sufficient context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_fields_for_user or get_field_for_org). No prerequisites or constraints (e.g., user membership, project existence) are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for correct invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are given, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The description only states the action and resource, omitting that this is a read operation, and does not mention pagination, sorting, or any side effects. The agent lacks information about how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (6 words) and front-loaded. However, it is too brief given the tool has 8 parameters and no output schema. Every sentence should earn its place; this one barely provides purpose but lacks detail on usage or behavior. Not overly verbose, but under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, sorting options, or any constraints. The agent would need to infer or test these behaviors. Schema descriptions mitigate this slightly, but overall context is lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'List' and the resource 'review comments on a pull request'. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tool 'github_pulls_list_review_comments_for_repo', which lists comments across a repo. A more precise description would mention that comments are for a specific pull request.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_pulls_list_review_comments_for_repo' or 'github_pulls_get_review_comment'. The agent receives no context about selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, any required permissions, rate limits, or what happens if no reviews exist. The description is completely silent on behavior beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is too brief and lacks structure. While it earns its place by stating the tool's purpose, it could be expanded without becoming overly verbose. Score reflects median efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain return behavior (e.g., review details, pagination). It fails to do so. The context of being part of a large GitHub API server with many siblings also demands more distinction, which the description does not provide.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, but the descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'owner', 'repo'). The description adds no additional semantic meaning, such as clarifying that 'owner' refers to the repository owner's username or organization. Baseline is 3 given high schema coverage, but the lack of value-add keeps it at 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'reviews for a pull request', making the tool's purpose obvious. However, it does not distinguish itself from related sibling tools like `github_pulls_list_review_comments`, but the name itself is sufficiently clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description lacks any indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `github_pulls_get_review` or `github_pulls_list_review_comments`. This omission could lead to incorrect tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states 'Create reaction' implying a write operation, but it does not disclose that it likely requires authentication, whether it can modify existing reactions, or the effect of duplicate reactions. The description lacks sufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and concise, but it is so brief that it omits essential details. It is not verbose, but the lack of structure (e.g., separating purpose from usage) makes it less helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the reaction object). With 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should at least mention that the body should contain a 'content' field specifying the type of reaction.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains parameters. The description adds no information about parameters, such as the required 'owner', 'repo', 'issue_number', or the structure of the 'body' object. With high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create reaction for an issue' clearly states the verb (create) and resource (reaction on an issue). It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_reactions_create_for_issue_comment by specifying the target as an issue. However, it lacks specificity about what a reaction entails (e.g., emoji type), making it slightly vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist for other resources (commit comment, pull request review comment, release), but the description does not mention context or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 fails to mention that this fetches data via the GitHub REST API, supports pagination (via per_page/page params), or returns specific reaction types. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (5 words), but not front-loaded with key information. While it's short, it sacrifices detail for brevity. Adequate but not structured optimally.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should compensate with more context. It doesn't mention pagination, response format, or any behavioral details, making it less complete than expected for a tool with 6 parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'reactions for an issue comment', making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_for_issue' but still sufficiently identifies the resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_for_issue, create_for_issue_comment). No context about prerequisites or common use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'compare', implying a read operation, but does not confirm safety, idempotency, or any side effects. Given the absence of annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (2 words), but lacks necessary detail. While not verbose, it is under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description fails to explain what the comparison returns or how to interpret parameters like basehead. It leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions for owner, repo, basehead, page, and per_page.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Compare two commits' clearly indicates the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_commit (single commit) and list_commits (list). While brief, it explicitly states the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_commit for a single commit, list_commits for listing). The description lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavior. It only repeats the action ('Create a commit comment') without disclosing whether authentication is required, what happens on failure, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence) but under-specified. While it is front-loaded, it lacks essential details that would improve utility without being overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain the return value (e.g., the created comment object), required permissions, or the expected format of the body parameter. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the description adds no new meaning beyond the parameter names. The description implies 'body' is the comment content but does not clarify its structure or optionality. Given high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('create') and the resource ('commit comment'), distinguishing it from other comment creation tools like issue or PR review comments. However, it lacks additional detail about the exact scope (e.g., 'on a specific commit').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `github_issues_create_comment` or `github_pulls_create_review_comment`. The description does not include exclusions or context for typical usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('Create'), with no mention of side effects (e.g., behavior if policy already exists), required permissions, or idempotency. This is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence without wasted words, but it is under-specified for the tool's complexity. Front-loading the core action is fine, but the brevity sacrifices useful context. Earns its place but is not optimally informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a nested 'body' parameter, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the body should contain (policy rules, etc.) and what the response will be, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% but each parameter description is minimal (e.g., 'owner', 'repo'). The tool description adds no additional meaning, so baseline of 3 is appropriate; it neither harms nor helps beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a deployment branch policy' clearly states the verb (Create) and resource (deployment branch policy). However, among sibling tools like update, delete, and get deployment branch policies, it does not differentiate when to use create versus update, limiting clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool instead of alternatives like update_deployment_branch_policy or list_deployment_branch_policies, leaving the agent without context for correct invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Create', implying mutation, but does not mention required permissions (e.g., admin:org), side effects, or constraints (e.g., repo name uniqueness). With zero annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it sacrifices important details (e.g., what the body should contain), making it minimally adequate but not efficient in conveying necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of creating an organization repository and the absence of an output schema, the description should explain the return value (e.g., the created repo object), required body fields (e.g., name), and potential errors. It provides none of this, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both params have descriptions), but those descriptions are minimal ('org', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create an organization repository' clearly states the action and resource, distinguishing it from tools like github_repos_create_fork which creates a fork, not an org repo. However, it does not specify whether it creates a repo under the authenticated user's org or any org, nor mention that it requires the repo name in the body.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_repos_create_fork, github_repos_create_commit_comment, or other repo creation tools. The agent has no context on prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Delete', which implies a destructive action, but omits details on irreversibility, cascading effects (e.g., on deployment statuses), or required authentication level. The brevity leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (3 words), which is structurally efficient. However, it is too brief, sacrificing essential context. It earns its place but does not balance brevity with informativeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive action like deleting a deployment, the description should clarify scope, reversibility, or prerequisites. Without output schema or behavioral notes, the description is incomplete, leaving the agent without critical context for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but parameter descriptions are mere repetitions (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'deployment_id'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and resource 'a deployment', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_repos_delete_deployment_branch_policy' or 'github_repos_delete_deployment_status', leaving the agent to infer the specific deployment type from the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions for deletion. The description lacks context about required permissions or deployment state, forcing the agent to rely solely on the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, or what the response format is, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise but under-specified. It lacks necessary context, making it minimally adequate rather than optimally sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values. It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the response format. Additionally, no usage notes are provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with existing parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get all status check contexts' clearly states the verb and resource, but could be more specific about the context being for a branch. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add or remove status check contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add, remove, set, or get status checks protection. The agent has no context to decide when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present. The description only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the tool returns a site configuration or status. The description adds minimal value beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks substance. It is not verbose, but it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the GitHub API (many sibling tools) and the lack of an output schema, the description does not provide sufficient context. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., site configuration, build status) or any other relevant details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage (both 'owner' and 'repo' are described, albeit trivially). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. Per the guidelines, baseline is 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a GitHub Pages site' clearly specifies the action (get) and resource (GitHub Pages site). It is specific enough to understand the tool's purpose, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pages_build' or 'get_pages_deployment'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the operation is a read (get), but does not describe what is returned (e.g., whether it returns the required status checks, enforcement level, etc.). No mention of auth needs or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short (4 words), which is concise but lacks proper sentence structure. Could be expanded to a full sentence for clarity. Every word is necessary but insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should explain the return value. It does not. The tool's complexity is low, but the description omits essential details like what the response contains, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage but each parameter is documented only by its name ('owner', 'repo', 'branch'). Description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score applies. It does not clarify expected formats or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get status checks protection' clearly states the verb (get) and resource (status checks protection). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_status_check_protection' or 'remove_status_check_protection', but does not differentiate from 'get_all_status_check_contexts', which may overlap in purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other status check tools. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., branch must exist, protection must be enabled) or context where this is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not mention required permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the output includes full config details. This is insufficient for a mutation-free read tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at 8 words, but it is under-specified. While no words are wasted, more detail would improve clarity. It is not a tautology, but it barely exceeds minimal functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what a 'webhook configuration' is and what the return value contains. The tool has three required parameters, but the description does not elaborate on how they are used or any constraints. This is incomplete for reliable agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with each parameter described only by its name (e.g., 'owner'). The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameters, so it meets the baseline expectation but does not improve understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a webhook configuration for a repository. The verb 'Get' and resource 'webhook configuration' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_repos_get_webhook (which might return the webhook object) or github_repos_get_webhook_delivery, leaving ambiguity about when to use each.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain when to retrieve the configuration versus the webhook itself, or what prerequisites are needed (e.g., admin permissions).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or authorization requirements. The input schema includes pagination parameters, but the description offers no additional context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two words), but it lacks necessary detail to be fully informative. It is not verbose, but brevity comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain what the output contains or any usage context. The rich schema compensates slightly, but the description is insufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters adequately. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the tool name, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'List commits' clearly indicates the action on the resource, matching the tool name. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_pulls_list_commits or github_gists_list_commits, leaving ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description does not mention any context or prerequisites for invoking this tool over other commit-listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action, omitting details like pagination behavior, authentication requirements, scope of results, or whether it returns user details or just logins. The pagination parameters are present in the schema, but the description does not clarify their usage or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (three words), which is beneficial for quick understanding, but it sacrifices completeness. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, but lacks structure or additional context that could be added without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what data is returned and under what circumstances. It is inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior without relying on external knowledge or schema documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. For example, the schema defines pagination parameters with links to documentation, but the tool's description does not highlight or clarify them further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List repository contributors' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (repository contributors). It is specific and informative, though it does not differentiate from closely related tools like listing collaborators or contributors via other endpoints. However, the name itself already provides clear purpose, and the description reinforces it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparisons to sibling tools. An agent would have to infer usage context solely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not mention pagination, ordering, rate limits, or that it returns a list. The schema includes per_page and page parameters, but the description omits this behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (2 words), but lacks necessary detail. While it's short, it could include scope and pagination hints without being verbose. The sentence is earned but insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so the description should explain what is returned. It does not mention the list format or that pagination is supported. The schema has pagination parameters but the description does not reference them.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List deployment branch policies' clearly states the action (list) and resource (deployment branch policies). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, get, update, delete. However, it could be more specific about scope (owner, repo, environment).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get single policy, list all deployments). The description does not provide context for when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'List deployment statuses' without mentioning pagination (page/per_page parameters), read-only behavior, or any side effects. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about important behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (3 words) and front-loaded, but it is too brief to be considered well-structured. While it avoids unnecessary text, it sacrifices clarity and completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and lacks annotations. The description does not explain that it returns an array of deployment status objects or that it requires a deployment_id. It leaves the agent with significant gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List deployment statuses' clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'deployment statuses'. It implies listing multiple statuses, distinguishing it from 'get_deployment_status' which retrieves a single status. However, it does not explicitly mention that statuses are listed for a specific deployment (deployment_id is required in schema but not in description).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_repos_get_deployment_status' or 'github_repos_list_deployments'. Given the large number of sibling tools, clear usage context is essential but missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fails to disclose key behaviors: authentication needs, pagination handling, or what happens if no builds exist. It only states the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence—concise but lacks structure. It states purpose without elaboration, earning its place but not optimally.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite a simple tool, the description is incomplete: no mention of pagination, required permissions, or edge cases. Without output schema or annotations, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for per_page and page. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'GitHub Pages builds', with enough specificity to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_pages_build (single) or request_pages_build (create).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to use list vs get vs request). Prerequisites like needing Pages enabled are omitted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'remove' (a destructive action) but does not clarify idempotency, error states, or impact on branch protection. The lack of behavioral details is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the action, but does not provide any additional details to aid understanding. It is under-specified for a tool with three required parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and the complexity of branch protection, the description fails to explain what 'app access restrictions' are, how they relate to the branch parameter, or what the result of removal is. This is insufficient for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage with minimal descriptions for owner, repo, branch. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names, but the names themselves are fairly self-explanatory. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove app access restrictions' clearly indicates the action (remove) and the resource (app access restrictions). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'add_app_access_restrictions' and 'get_apps_with_access_to_protected_branch', but lacks specificity about the context (branch-related access restrictions).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to remove restrictions vs. add or get them. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions, leaving the agent with little context to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects, or what happens if the update fails. The minimal description fails to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the fact that it performs an update.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at one sentence, but it lacks any structure or additional context. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity sacrifices valuable information that could aid the agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (nested body parameter, many sibling tools, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the request body structure, permissible operations, or return values, leaving the agent without enough context to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, but the descriptions are minimal ('owner', 'repo', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'update' and resource 'repository', distinguishing from create/delete tools. However, it lacks specificity on what aspects of a repository can be updated, which might cause confusion with other update tools like github_repos_update_branch_protection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other update tools for specific repository aspects). The description provides no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Create,' implying a mutation, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether existing bypasses are affected), required permissions, or rate limits. The agent lacks critical context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (one sentence), which is concise but at the cost of necessary detail. It saves space but fails to provide enough information for effective tool selection and invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a push protection bypass is, when to create one, or what the request body should contain, leaving a significant knowledge gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema descriptions already cover all parameters (owner, repo, body), so the description adds no extra meaning. The body parameter is described vaguely as 'Request body (JSON object),' which the description does not clarify further, resulting in a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('push protection bypass'), which distinguishes it from other secret scanning tools that primarily list or update alerts. However, it could be more specific about the context (e.g., for a repository) to maximize clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like secret scanning alert updates or listing alerts. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Create' implying mutation but fails to disclose permissions needed, side effects, or behavior like whether the advisory is published immediately or requires further action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks detail. It is front-loaded but not sufficiently informative for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the many sibling tools and the lack of output schema, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to understand when to use this tool, what parameters the body object expects, or what the response will look like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but the descriptions are trivial ('owner', 'repo', 'Request body'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a repository security advisory' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update' or 'list' tools. However, it lacks specificity on the exact scope or fields involved in the advisory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not differentiate this tool from siblings like create_private_vulnerability_report or create_fork, nor does it indicate when this tool should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'List' without disclosing safety (e.g., read-only), pagination, default sorting, or authentication requirements. For a listing tool with many parameters, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. Important information like default behavior or result format is missing. It earns its place but could be improved with front-loading.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 18 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain default filtering (e.g., only reviewed advisories) or data returned. It does not, making it incomplete for a complex tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain parameter interactions or provide examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List global security advisories' clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_global_advisory' (single) and 'create_*' operations. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects are listed (e.g., filtered, paginated).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include 'get_global_advisory' and 'create_repository_advisory', but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when there are no advisories. The agent must infer behavior solely from the name and schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It is front-loaded but does not earn its place because it provides minimal value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return format, pagination, and filtering behavior. It does not. The schema covers parameters, but the description fails to provide essential context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'repository security advisories' with scope 'for an organization'. It distinguishes from similar tools like list_repository_advisories (repo-level) and list_global_advisories. However, it could explicitly mention that it lists advisories across all repositories in the org.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like list_repository_advisories or list_global_advisories. No mention of prerequisites or context for using the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description fails to disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing permissions), required authentication scopes, or rate limits. The phrase 'Add or update' implies mutation, but lacks detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short (one phrase) but missing essential information. While front-loaded, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with nested body, legacy endpoint) and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not specify permission levels, body format, or constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description does not add any meaning beyond the parameter names in the schema. The 'body' parameter's structure and expected fields are not explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb+resource: 'Add or update team repository permissions'. The '(Legacy)' suffix hints at an older API version, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'github_teams_add_or_update_repo_permissions_in_org'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., the non-legacy version). No context about prerequisites or scenarios where this endpoint is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description offers no behavioral details beyond the action of listing members. It does not disclose pagination behavior, role filtering effects, or differences from newer endpoints, and there are no annotations to compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that states the core purpose, but it is too brief and could be expanded slightly to improve utility without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (pagination, role filtering, legacy status) and the presence of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, pagination handling, and why the legacy version exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List team members' with a verb and resource, and the '(Legacy)' suffix hints at differentiation from newer versions, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like github_teams_list_members_in_org.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this is a legacy endpoint or suggest preferring the non-legacy version.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Remove team member' implying a destructive mutation, but provides no details on side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what 'legacy' means in terms of behavior differences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (4 words), which is good for quick recognition but lacks sufficient substance to be truly helpful. It is front-loaded with the key verb and object, but could be slightly expanded for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the operation and the presence of siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not address the 'legacy' aspect, alternative endpoints, or any organizational context. An agent would lack critical information for proper tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 100% (each parameter described by name), but the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain what team_id or username refer to in this context. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove team member (Legacy)' clearly indicates the action (remove) and resource (team member). The 'Legacy' suffix hints it's an older API, but it does not distinguish from sibling tools like github_teams_remove_membership_for_user_legacy or github_teams_remove_repo_legacy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the non-legacy endpoint or other removal tools. The description lacks context on prerequisites, deprecation status, or recommended usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action but omits important details: whether it returns a boolean/status code, authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior for non-existent users. The minimal description does not add value beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks important details. It is front-loaded but could be more structured to include usage context or return behavior. Every sentence should earn its place; here, extra detail is missing, not excessive.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is barely adequate. It fails to specify the response format (e.g., boolean or HTTP status) and does not clarify the meaning of 'follows'. The completeness is insufficient for confident use without prior API knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions that merely repeat the parameter names. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks if one user follows another, using the verb 'Check' and specifying the resource ('a user follows another user'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_users_check_person_is_followed_by_authenticated which is limited to the authenticated user, though this distinction is not explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as github_users_check_person_is_followed_by_authenticated or the follow/unfollow tools. No context on when to prefer this over the authenticated version or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description does not disclose behavioral traits such as required authentication, effects, or error conditions. Only states the operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, no wasted words. However, it is overly brief and could be more informative without increasing length significantly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a deletion tool, the description is incomplete. It does not mention how the email is identified, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. With no output schema or annotations, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics; baseline is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and target (email address for authenticated user), but does not specify how to identify which email to delete since the input schema has no parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools (e.g., add_email, list_emails). Lacks context on prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description only says 'List email addresses' without disclosing pagination behavior, return format, or any side effects. It fails to compensate for the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, but could be expanded to include return value information without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, and the description omits any details about the response structure (e.g., email fields, primary flag). This is insufficient for a list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has full description coverage for both parameters (per_page, page). The description adds no extra meaning, so baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists email addresses for the authenticated user, but does not differentiate from a sibling tool 'github_users_list_public_emails_for_authenticated_user', which may have a different scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the public email tool, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or whether it is read-only. The description simply restates the tool's function without adding behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single phrase, but it lacks structure. It is minimal and does not provide any formatting or supplementary details. While efficient, it could benefit from being slightly more expansive.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the response will contain. The tool is simple, but the agent is left guessing about the return format or data structure, which hinders effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear descriptions for each parameter (username, per_page, page). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'list social accounts' and the target 'for a user'. The tool name also indicates this. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_social_accounts_for_authenticated_user', which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to choose this over the similar sibling tool for the authenticated user. The agent receives no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. Only 'update' is stated, with no mention of side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or data modifications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence) but lacks useful details. It is concise but could be more informative without adding length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity (1 param) but no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain what fields can be updated, return values, or required auth scopes. It is incomplete for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only has one optional parameter 'body' (object), with schema description already full (100%). The description adds no further semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update the authenticated user' clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'authenticated user', distinguishing it from other user-related tools like 'get' or 'list'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as patching other users or using other update tools. No usage context or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that labels are appended (not replaced), whether the operation is idempotent, required permissions, or error behavior. The description is too terse to inform an agent of side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. However, it could benefit from structuring to separate purpose, behavior, and parameter details. It is efficient but leaves gaps.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a nested body parameter and the existence of sibling tools for labels, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the body format, expected response, or how this tool differs from similar ones in the sibling list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are trivial ('owner', 'repo', 'runner_id', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no meaning beyond the param names. The body's expected structure (e.g., array of label strings) is not clarified, which is critical for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (add custom labels), the target (self-hosted runner), and the scope (for a repository). The verb 'add' distinguishes it from related tools like 'set' or 'remove', leaving no ambiguity about the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_custom_labels' or 'remove_custom_labels'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., runner must exist) or scenarios where add vs set is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states a mutation action without revealing whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the repo already exists, or any permission requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (6 words) and front-loads the action. However, it omits essential details that would require additional sentences. While not verbose, it leans toward under-specification rather than efficient completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and three required parameters, the description should provide more context. It fails to explain the relationship between variables and repositories, prerequisites (e.g., existing variable), or the outcome. The description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness for a complex GitHub Actions operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Though schema description coverage is 100%, each parameter description is just the parameter name (e.g., 'org', 'name', 'repository_id'), adding no meaning. The tool description itself does not explain what 'name' refers to (variable name) or the format of 'repository_id'. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add selected repository to an organization variable' clearly states the action (add) and the target (selected repository to an organization variable). It is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'add_selected_repo_to_org_secret' (handles secrets) or 'remove_selected_repo_from_org_variable' (removes instead of adds).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'add_selected_repo_to_org_secret' or 'remove_selected_repo_from_org_variable'. It does not mention prerequisites or scenarios, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only states 'Create or update' implying idempotency, but fails to disclose requirements for encryption, side effects, or authorization needs. The description does not compensate for missing annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (one sentence), no wasted words. However, it lacks structure for a complex operation; a bit more detail could be warranted without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the body format (likely encrypted value and key_id), nor does it cover expected behavior or error conditions. Many related secret tools have richer descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% but descriptions are trivial (parameter names repeated). The 'body' parameter is described as 'Request body (JSON object)' which is vague. The description adds no additional meaning beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create or update' and the resource 'environment secret', but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_actions_create_or_update_repo_secret' or 'github_actions_create_or_update_org_secret' which have similar purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like repo or org secret tools. Missing prerequisites (e.g., environment must exist, need public key for encryption) and no explicit conditions for when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention token expiration, permissions required, idempotency, or the purpose of the token (e.g., registering self-hosted runners). This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no redundancy. While efficient, it could be slightly more structured to include a brief note on token purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and the tool's creation nature, the description is too minimal. It omits critical context about what the token is used for and what the response contains, making it hard for an agent to use correctly among many similar tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes the parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema, meriting a baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool creates a registration token for a repository, which is a clear verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like github_actions_create_registration_token_for_org or github_actions_create_remove_token_for_repo, which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or cases where this tool should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks behavioral details beyond the action. It does not explain what a remove token is, its purpose (e.g., for removing self-hosted runners), or any side effects. With no annotations, the description should provide more transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it may be too brief. It lacks important context that could be added without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the token's use case, prerequisites, or how it differs from similar tokens (e.g., registration tokens).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema coverage is 100% (one parameter 'org'), but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's minimal label 'org'. The tool description does not explain what the parameter represents or its role.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a remove token for an organization' clearly states the action (create), the resource (remove token), and the scope (organization). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'github_actions_create_registration_token_for_org' by specifying the token type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'github_actions_create_registration_token_for_org'. The description does not include when/when-not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Create', which implies mutation, but does not disclose any side effects, permissions required, token lifetime, or that it invalidates existing tokens. Transparency is low.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it is too minimal to be fully informative. It earns its place by stating the action, but lacks substance necessary for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create-token tool, the description is missing key context: what a remove token is used for (removing self-hosted runners), that it is typically used in runner cleanup, and how it differs from registration tokens. The agent may not infer purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has high coverage (100%) but each parameter description is just the name ('owner', 'repo'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what a remove token is or how parameters are used.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'create' and the resource 'remove token for a repository', which is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling tool for organizations (github_actions_create_remove_token_for_org). The scope is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., registration token, or when a remove token is needed). The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description only says 'create', which implies mutation. It does not disclose idempotency, error conditions, or side effects like what happens if the group already exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks important details. It is not verbose, but it sacrifices completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and many similar sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what a runner group is, how to configure it via the body, or differentiate from related tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but descriptions are minimal ('org' and 'Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no extra meaning; the body object's structure is unspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'create' and the resource 'self-hosted runner group' scoped to 'an organization'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get, delete, and update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update or delete). There is no mention of prerequisites, permissions, or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the delete action without disclosing that it is destructive, irreversible, or requires specific permissions. Minimal behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: a single sentence of 10 words that clearly conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description lacks completeness. It omits return behavior, potential errors, or any note about the operation being permanent. No output schema exists to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (each parameter has a description, albeit just the field name). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the parameter names, but baseline is 3 due to high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Delete an image version of custom image from the organization', using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'github_actions_delete_custom_image_from_org' by specifying 'image version', but does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the sibling that deletes the entire custom image. The description provides no context about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the deletion action without mentioning permanence, required permissions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is remarkably concise at four words, front-loading the essential action. Every word is necessary and there is no superfluous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, confirmation, or potential errors. It omits these details, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters (owner, repo, environment_name, secret_name) with descriptions that are self-explanatory. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete an environment secret' is a clear verb+resource pair that directly states the tool's action. Although it does not differentiate from siblings like 'github_actions_delete_environment_variable', the name itself is specific enough to distinguish.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'create_or_update_environment_secret' or 'list_environment_secrets'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is irreversible. The bare description lacks necessary transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single phrase. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing useful context, but it is not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (delete operation with three params) and the absence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context such as prerequisities (e.g., secret must exist), permissions, or side effects. It leaves the agent to infer too much.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter described by its name only. The tool description adds no additional meaning or format details beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a repository secret' clearly states the verb (delete) and the resource (repository secret), distinguishing it from related tools like create_or_update or get. However, it does not elaborate on scope or context beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as creating or updating secrets. The implied usage from the name is clear, but the description offers no explicit context or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description gives no behavioral details beyond the destructive implication of 'delete'. With no annotations to fall back on, it fails to disclose critical traits like irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects (e.g., removal of associated artifacts). This leaves the agent underinformed about the operation's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is immediately understandable. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it could include a bit more context without significant bloat. Overall, it is well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is barely adequate. It omits important context such as the permanence of deletion, prerequisite permissions, or the relationship to other workflow run operations. A more complete description would address these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% description coverage for the three parameters (owner, repo, run_id), which are self-explanatory. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation. No compensation is needed, so a score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a workflow run' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (workflow run). It effectively communicates the tool's core function and distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform other operations like approve, cancel, or re-run. However, it does not elaborate on the specific type of workflow run or any nuances.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cancel_workflow_run or force_cancel_workflow_run. The description lacks context about the circumstances favoring deletion over other actions, leaving the agent with insufficient decision-making information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Disable', implying a write operation but not disclosing side effects, reversibility, or whether existing workflows are stopped. The behavioral impact is insufficiently described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence. It is front-loaded and efficient, but could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of GitHub Actions and the large number of sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the effect on the repository, organization policies, or clarify the required permissions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, but both parameter descriptions are empty (just the parameter names). The tool description does not add meaning, e.g., what format repository_id should be (numeric ID vs. name).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Disable' and the resource 'a selected repository for GitHub Actions in an organization'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like the enable counterpart.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., enable, list). It does not mention permissions, prerequisites, or context where this action is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Download' without explaining what is returned (e.g., archive format, size limits), authentication needs, or whether it's destructive. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (4 words) and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity. It earns a high score for conciseness but low for information density.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, the description should explain what the download returns (e.g., a zip file). It does not, leaving the agent without complete context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions that are simply the parameter names (e.g., 'owner', 'repo'). The description adds no additional meaning, so it meets the baseline but provides no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action 'Download' and resource 'workflow run attempt logs', making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'download_workflow_run_logs' or 'download_job_logs_for_workflow_run'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites or context, leaving the agent without direction on choosing this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Enable' without explaining what that entails (e.g., permissions needed, idempotency, effect on workflows, reversibility). This is a critical gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, no waste, and front-loaded. However, it may be too concise given the lack of supplementary information. Still acceptable for a simple enable action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, output schema, or additional context, the description leaves major gaps: what happens after enabling? Is it idempotent? What is the return value? The agent is left with insufficient information to confidently use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but parameter descriptions ('org', 'repository_id') are minimal and redundant with parameter names. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameter values (e.g., repository ID vs name). Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema carries the burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Enable', the resource 'selected repository', and the scope 'for GitHub Actions in an organization'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like the disable counterpart.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., enable_workflow). No prerequisites, conditions, or when-not-to-use hints are provided. The agent lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fails to disclose important behavioral details such as authentication requirements, pagination, or the structure of the response. It only states the basic operation, leaving the agent to infer behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, achieving maximum conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and the existence of many sibling cache tools, the description does not provide enough context about what the response contains or how this tool fits into the workflow. It feels incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond the function name, meeting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List GitHub Actions caches for a repository', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cache deletion or usage statistics by the 'list' action, but could be more specific about what is returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative cache-related tools (e.g., delete, get usage). The description does not include any contextual hints or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, return format, pagination, or required permissions. For a simple GET endpoint, some transparency could be expected, but the description is too sparse.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded, with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though more detail could be added without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description lacks information about the return value (e.g., total size, count, breakdown). While it gets the core purpose across, it leaves ambiguity about what 'cache usage' entails, which is a gap for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of the parameter (org) with a description of 'org'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action is to get cache usage for an organization, but it does not differentiate from siblings like 'github_actions_get_actions_cache_usage' (which may be for a repository) or 'github_actions_get_actions_cache_usage_by_repo_for_org' (which provides per-repo breakdown). The term 'cache usage' is vague regarding what specific data is returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many related cache tools among siblings, and the description offers no context about when this aggregate org-level tool is appropriate versus other cache endpoints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or the scope of the 'definition' returned. It is insufficient for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it could be expanded to include more context without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks details about return value or constraints, making it incomplete for a confident agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters documented, but descriptions are just parameter names and add no extra meaning. The description does not elaborate on their purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'custom image definition'. It distinguishes from sibling tools that list or get versions, but does not explicitly differentiate itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_custom_images' or 'get_custom_image_version'. The description provides no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention authentication requirements, error behavior (e.g., what happens if the version does not exist), or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one brief sentence) with no extraneous information, but it is too sparse to be genuinely helpful. Conciseness is good, but structure is minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context. It does not explain what the tool returns, any prerequisites, or how the parameters relate to each other. For a 3-parameter required tool, this is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the schema descriptions are trivial (just parameter names). The description does not add any meaningful explanation of what 'org', 'image_definition_id', or 'version' represent, leaving the AI agent to guess at their semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('an image version of a custom image for GitHub Actions Hosted Runners'). It distinguishes the tool from its siblings (e.g., list_custom_images_for_org, list_custom_image_versions_for_org) by specifying that it retrieves a single version rather than listing all.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_custom_image_versions_for_org. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., obtaining the image_definition_id) or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It does not mention authentication requirements, what happens if the secret does not exist, or whether the secret value is returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is appropriately short, though it could be more informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what the response contains or how to interpret results, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but the descriptions are simply parameter names (e.g., 'owner'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get an environment secret' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (environment secret), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_environment_secrets or create_or_update_environment_secret.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as listing all secrets or creating/updating. No context is given for prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get' but omits any information about required permissions, error scenarios (e.g., missing org), or rate limits. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly confirmed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that is concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks structure for additional information such as usage or return values, which would improve completeness without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is insufficient for a complete understanding. It does not explain what the returned permissions represent, nor does it differentiate from the repo-level sibling tool. An agent would lack critical context to use the tool effectively, especially given no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'org' with description 'org', providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given high coverage. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'fork PR contributor approval permissions for an organization', effectively describing the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_..._repository' tool by specifying 'organization', though the name itself already conveys this.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention related set tools (e.g., 'set_fork_pr_contributor_approval_permissions_organization') or the repo-level equivalent, leaving the agent to infer usage context without support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple get operation, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple tool with few parameters, but it lacks context about the return value and any behavioral details. It is complete enough for a basic understanding but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters, but the descriptions are just the parameter names ('owner', 'repo'). They add no additional meaning or format guidance. Baseline at high coverage is 3, and the description does not improve it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'fork PR contributor approval permissions' with scope 'a repository'. This distinguishes it from its sibling at the organization level. However, it does not elaborate on what these permissions are, which could be clearer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is a sibling for organization-level permissions, but the description does not explicitly mention when to use the repository-level version or any other context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a read operation, minimal context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that is concise and free of fluff. However, it could be structured to include more details without losing conciseness, such as specifying the output format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and the complexity of the GitHub Actions API, the description lacks important context like what data is returned, required permissions, or how to obtain the runner ID. It is incomplete for an AI agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions, but those descriptions are just the parameter names ('org', 'hosted_runner_id') and add no additional meaning. The description does not provide extra context for the parameters, so it neither improves nor degrades the understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'GitHub-hosted runner for an organization', distinguishing it from sibling tools like github_actions_list_hosted_runners_for_org (list) and github_actions_create_hosted_runner_for_org (create). However, it does not explicitly mention the unique identifier (hosted_runner_id) required to fetch a specific runner.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., listing vs getting a specific runner). It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing the runner ID from a list operation, or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only states 'Get' implying a read operation, but does not disclose rate limits, pagination, or that it returns a list. For a read tool without annotations, more behavioral context is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to read.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. However, the description does not explain what 'partner images' are or the structure of the return value, leaving some ambiguity for the AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'org', which is described only as 'org' in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning or format hints beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'partner images for GitHub-hosted runners' within an organization, distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_hosted_runners_github_owned_images_for_org' which retrieves a different type of image.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_actions_get_hosted_runners_github_owned_images_for_org'. No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavior beyond 'Get an organization secret'. It fails to mention whether it returns the secret value or metadata, required permissions, or that it is a read operation. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at 4 words. While efficient, it could include slightly more context (e.g., 'by name' or 'returns secret details') without becoming verbose. Still acceptable for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not hint at the return value (e.g., secret value or metadata). Given the complexity of sibling tools and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage (both 'org' and 'secret_name' are described, albeit minimally). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Get' and resource 'organization secret', clearly indicating it retrieves an organization secret. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like github_actions_get_repo_secret or github_actions_list_org_secrets, relying on the tool name for distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_actions_list_org_secrets or github_actions_create_or_update_org_secret. An agent without context might not know when to choose this over related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, authentication requirements, or side effects. The current description is limited to a terse action statement and fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the base meaning.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise with a single sentence that directly states the purpose. While minimal, it avoids unnecessary words. However, the brevity slightly limits completeness, preventing a top score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities. It does not explain return values, constraints, or how it compares to siblings. Given the simple nature of the tool, more context is needed to ensure correct usage without guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions, but they are trivial ('org', 'name'). The tool description adds no additional context about the parameters, such as expected formats or relationships. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get an organization variable' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (organization variable). However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'github_actions_get_org_secret' or 'github_actions_get_env_variable', missing an opportunity to clarify that this retrieves an Actions variable specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list or create tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for effective selection among many similar siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description only indicates a read operation via 'Get' but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, or what specific settings are returned. It adds minimal value beyond the verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence that is front-loaded. It conveys the essential information without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks detail about what the settings are and the return format, which would help an agent use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (one param 'org' described as 'org'). However, the description adds no nuance about the parameter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'private repo fork PR workflow settings', and the scope 'for an organization'. It is specific and distinguishes from the repository-level sibling implicit in the naming, though not explicitly mentioned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the repository-level counterpart. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get', implying a read operation, but provides no details about what the key is used for, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loads the purpose. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices completeness for brevity. Still, it earns its place by stating the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what the public key is, its format, or typical usage. It fails to inform the agent about the return value or any important constraints. The tool is simple, but completeness is low.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described as 'owner' and 'repo', but these are just the parameter names. The description does not add any additional meaning or clarification about the parameters (e.g., what format owner/repo should be in). Since schema coverage is high, baseline is 3, and the description does not improve upon it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('a repository public key'). It is a concise verb+resource pair that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_org_public_key or get_environment_public_key, which have similar purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when you need the repo-level public key vs. org-level). No context on prerequisites or common use cases. The description is purely declarative without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention that GitHub API returns only metadata (name, created_at, updated_at) and not the actual secret value. Also, no disclosure of required permissions or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. It is front-loaded and has no unnecessary verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should clarify what is returned (metadata only). It omits this and other contextual details like the need for admin permissions or that secrets are not retrieved in plaintext.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter (owner, repo, secret_name) having a basic description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a repository secret' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'repository secret'. It is unambiguous, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_actions_get_repo_variable or github_actions_list_repo_secrets, which have similar patterns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as listing secrets or creating/updating them. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description 'Get a repository variable' implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state it, nor does it disclose any behavioral traits such as return format, pagination, permissions, or side effects. It adds no value beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at 4 words, front-loading the purpose. However, it is so brief that it omits useful context. It is not verbose, but it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool and the lack of output schema or annotations, the description should at least indicate what is returned (e.g., 'Returns the variable value and metadata'). It fails to provide this, making it incomplete for an agent to understand the full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions that are merely the parameter names (owner, repo, name), which are trivial. The tool description does not add any additional semantics. Baseline for high coverage is 3, so this score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a repository variable' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (repository variable). However, it does not differentiate from siblings like github_actions_get_org_variable or github_actions_get_repo_secret, as it fails to specify that it retrieves a variable (as opposed to a secret) and that it operates at the repository level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to use this over github_actions_get_repo_secret or github_actions_list_repo_variables, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and a bare description, the tool fails to disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, safety, or side effects. The word 'Get' implies a read operation, but no explicit confirmation or additional context (e.g., authentication requirements, rate limits) is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity. It earns a 4 because it is well-structured and front-loaded, but it could include more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, annotations, and meaningful parameter descriptions, the tool definition lacks critical information about return values, error handling, and required permissions. For a tool with three required parameters, the description is insufficient for an agent to use it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter, but those descriptions are tautological (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'runner_id'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema technically covers all params, albeit with minimal useful detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a self-hosted runner for a repository' clearly states the action (get) and resource (self-hosted runner) scoped to a repository. The name already distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_self_hosted_runner_for_org' and 'list_self_hosted_runners_for_repo', so the description suffices for purpose identification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listing runners or getting a runner for an organization. The description does not specify conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it retrieves a value, but does not discuss permissions, idempotency, rate limits, or any potential side effects. The lack of any behavioral detail is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description does not hint at the return value or format. It also lacks information on any necessary permissions or prerequisites. For a simple read operation, more context is needed to fully enable agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with both 'owner' and 'repo' parameters described, but the descriptions are minimal ('owner' and 'repo'). The tool description adds no additional meaning or format guidance. Baseline is 3 due to coverage, but no extra semantic value is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('level of access for workflows outside of the repository'). It sufficiently distinguishes from sibling tools like 'github_actions_set_workflow_access_to_repository' by indicating it's a read operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, complementary tools, or recommended usage context. The description simply states the action without any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits like pagination support, permissions, or side effects. The input schema documents per_page and page, but the description does not mention that results can be paginated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words. However, it is perhaps too minimal; additional context could be added without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. But it lacks comparison to sibling tools and does not mention that it returns a list. For a simple list tool, it is minimally adequate but not helpful for an agent navigating many similar tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify what 'hosted runners' are or any constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it lists GitHub-hosted runners for an organization. Verb 'List' and resource 'GitHub-hosted runners' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_self_hosted_runners_for_org, relying on the name alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_hosted_runner_for_org (singular) or list_self_hosted_runners_for_org. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description only states 'List labels' with no disclosure of behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or idempotency. The burden is entirely on the description, which fails to provide any behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. While it could be more informative, it is concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide hints about the return format or additional behavioral context. It does not, leaving the agent underinformed. For a simple list operation, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% but both parameter descriptions are identical to the parameter names ('org', 'runner_id'), adding no meaning. The description also does not provide additional context for the parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list labels), the resource (self-hosted runner), and the scope (organization). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list_labels_for_self_hosted_runner_for_repo' which operates at the repository level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like add/remove/set custom labels. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description is minimal and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no redundant words. Efficient and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no mention of return structure, pagination, or behavior. Incomplete for a tool with three required parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% but each parameter description is just a tautology (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'runner_id'). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'labels for a self-hosted runner for a repository', distinguishing it from siblings like the org-level variant and mutation tools (add/remove/set).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., org variant, add/remove/set). No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations; description does not disclose authentication requirements, pagination behavior (though schema defines it), or any side effects. Very little beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no waste, front-loaded. However, it is perhaps too brief for a tool with many siblings and parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Does not explain what 'repository organization secrets' means versus similar concepts, nor does it mention output format or pagination usage. Despite schema having those details, the description offers no context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, but those descriptions are minimal (owner, repo) or external (per_page, page link). The tool description adds no additional meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (list) and resource (repository organization secrets). It is specific and distinct from sibling names like 'list_org_secrets' or 'list_repo_secrets', but does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_actions_list_org_secrets or github_actions_list_repo_secrets. No context on appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'List', implying a read operation, but does not confirm safety, required permissions, rate limits, or response structure. The pagination parameters are in the schema, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary detail, appropriate for a simple list tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity and the presence of siblings, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool. It does not explain what self-hosted runners are, the scope of results, or how it relates to other list tools. The absence of output schema or behavioral details further reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter (org, name, per_page, page) detailed. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3. No parameter-specific hints or constraints are provided in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List) and resource (self-hosted runners) scoped to an organization. While the tool name already indicates the org scope, the description reinforces it. However, it does not mention optional filtering or pagination, which the schema supports, limiting differentiation from related list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_self_hosted_runners_for_repo or list_self_hosted_runners_in_group_for_org. The description lacks context such as prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavior. It only says 'list' but omits details like pagination, filtering, and output format. Schema provides some info but description adds minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at 4 words, no fluff. Could be longer to add value, but it's efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on pagination, filtering, return format, and sibling differentiation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List workflow run artifacts' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like list_artifacts_for_repo. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_artifacts_for_repo or get_artifact. The description provides no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, required permissions, or what data is returned. For a tool with 13 parameters, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, containing one targeted sentence without any superfluous words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It lacks details about return values, default behavior, or constraints, making it incomplete for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter documented in the input schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but the baseline for high coverage is 3. No additional parameter insights are offered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'workflow runs for a workflow', making the action unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from the similar sibling tool 'github_actions_list_workflow_runs_for_repo', which also lists workflow runs but at the repo level instead of a specific workflow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_actions_list_workflow_runs_for_repo' or other listing tools. No context about prerequisites, preferred scenarios, or exclusions is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits but it does not. It omits details such as pagination, filtering capabilities, rate limits, or the structure of the returned data. The description is too brief to be informative.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded but could benefit from slightly more structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is extremely sparse. It does not explain the return type, pagination, or the optional filters available. The context is insufficient for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate but not enhanced.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (workflow runs) with scope (for a repository). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling `github_actions_list_workflow_runs`, which may cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `github_actions_list_workflow_runs` or other listing tools. The agent must infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action ('remove all custom labels') but omits critical details like required permissions, reversibility, or what happens to the runner after removal (e.g., only default labels remain). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, making it concise. However, it could be slightly restructured to include brief behavioral notes without losing conciseness. It earns a 4 because it is efficient but lacks structure (e.g., no separation of purpose and usage).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a mutation that modifies runner state, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or side effects. Even with simple parameters, the lack of output schema and annotations means the description should provide more context to ensure correct agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, but the descriptions are trivial (just the parameter names: 'owner', 'repo', 'runner_id'). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, failing to clarify their role or format beyond what the name implies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'remove' and the resource 'all custom labels from a self-hosted runner for a repository'. It precisely distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remove_custom_label (single label) and the org variant by specifying 'all' and 'for a repository'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, there is no mention of prerequisites, consequences (e.g., runner reverts to default labels), or comparison to remove_custom_label or set_custom_labels. With many sibling tools, this omission is significant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the removal action without mentioning side effects, required permissions, or idempotency. The agent lacks key risk information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of 9 words, which is efficient and directly communicates the core action. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly expanded for completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's effects. It does not specify what happens after removal, error conditions, or result expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema parameter descriptions are only the parameter names (e.g., 'org'), and the tool description does not clarify their roles beyond stating the overall purpose. No additional semantic value is provided beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Remove repository access to a self-hosted runner group in an organization', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'add' counterpart, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like adding or setting repository access. The agent receives no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or whether this operation is part of a sequence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. The description states only that it 'set[s]' the limit, without explaining side effects or what happens to existing limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loading the core action. It is concise, but the brevity comes at the cost of not adding value beyond the function name. The structure is acceptable, but it could be slightly expanded to include behavioral or parameter details without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, preconditions, or typical outcomes. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., status code, success message) or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaningful explanation beyond what is in the schema. The 'enterprise' parameter is described only as 'enterprise', and the 'body' parameter is described only as 'Request body (JSON object)' without detailing required properties or format. The description does not compensate for the lack of structure in the body schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (Set) and resource (GitHub Actions cache storage limit for an enterprise), but it essentially duplicates the tool name without adding new insight or differentiation from sibling tools like 'set_actions_cache_storage_limit_for_organization' or 'set_actions_cache_storage_limit_for_repository'. The scope (enterprise) is clear from the name, but the description does not explicitly contrast it with other levels.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to set for an enterprise vs. an organization or repository). The description does not provide context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where this tool is not appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Set', implying mutation, but omits details like required permissions, idempotency, side effects, or the format of the request body. The agent lacks information to safely invoke the tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it lacks structure such as bullet points or sections that could improve readability and information density.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (mutation, two parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the request body should contain, what the response looks like, or any other contextual information necessary for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The schema has two parameters with minimal descriptions ('org', 'Request body (JSON object)'), and the tool description does not elaborate on what properties the body should contain, such as the limit value. Schema coverage is 100% but with low information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set', the resource 'GitHub Actions cache storage limit', and the scope 'for an organization'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that target enterprise or repository scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus similar sibling tools (e.g., for enterprise or repository). No context about prerequisites, when not to use, or alternatives is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Set...limit', implying mutation, but it does not disclose whether it overwrites the existing limit, required permissions, rate limits, or effects on existing cache. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise, though perhaps too brief given the missing context. It earns a high score for lack of fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 parameters, a nested body, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what 'cache storage limit' means (e.g., in bytes or GB), how to specify it in the body, or the implications of setting it. The agent lacks essential information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are minimal ('owner', 'repo', 'Request body'). The body parameter is an empty object with no defined properties, and the description adds no guidance on what fields (e.g., limit_value, unit) should be included. The agent is left guessing the body structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'GitHub Actions cache storage limit for a repository', distinguishing it from siblings like 'set_actions_cache_retention_limit' or get counterparts by specifying scope and resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_actions_cache_storage_limit_for_enterprise), nor does it mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It only says 'Set' which implies mutation, but does not mention side effects, authorization needs, or that the body parameter is required to specify the settings.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no redundant information; appropriately concise for a straightforward mutation tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too brief for a mutation operation with a complex body parameter. It does not explain what keys the body should contain, any constraints, or what the return value is. An agent would lack critical information to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions, but both descriptions are minimal ('org', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate, but no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'Set' and resource 'artifact and log retention settings' scoped to an organization. It distinguishes from sibling repository-level and get tools by specifying organization scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like the repository version or get tool. No mention of required permissions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It only says 'set' without disclosing potential destructive nature, permissions required, or whether it overwrites existing templates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence with no fluff, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. Could be longer to add value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the tool lacks critical information for an agent to use it correctly, especially the body format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The body parameter is described only as 'Request body (JSON object)' with no details on its structure or expected properties, despite the tool name hinting at OIDC specific content.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'set' and the resource 'customization template for an OIDC subject claim for a repository', distinguishing it from the sibling 'get' tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, no prerequisites or context provided. For an OIDC operation, this is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the setting is global, whether it overwrites existing values, or if it requires specific permissions. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Only one sentence, which is concise but lacks any structural breakdown or additional context. It is front-loaded but too brief to be informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of setting organization-level permissions, the description is severely lacking. No output schema, no explanation of the body's structure, and no mention of effects or required scopes. Incomplete for an agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are minimal ('org' and 'Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no additional meaning. The 'body' parameter is a complex object with no further details, leaving the agent unsure of required fields or valid values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set default workflow permissions for an organization' clearly states the verb (Set), resource (default workflow permissions), and scope (organization). Distinguishes from sibling tools like the get or repository-level set tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to get vs set, or set for repo), no prerequisites or conditions mentioned. The agent is left to infer context from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Set default workflow permissions'. It doesn't mention idempotency, side effects, or what permissions are configurable, leaving the agent uninformed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutating tool with a complex 'body' parameter. It does not explain what the body should contain or how the tool behaves, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's generic 'owner', 'repo', and 'Request body (JSON object)'. The critical 'body' structure is unexplained, requiring the agent to infer from external knowledge.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'default workflow permissions for a repository', which is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like the 'get' counterpart.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the 'get' tool or the organization-level set tool. The description lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description lacks any behavioral details such as what permissions are affected, side effects, or required access levels, leaving the agent uninformed about the mutation's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence conveying the core purpose with no superfluous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a nested body object) and no output schema, the description is too minimal; it does not explain what the body should contain or what permissions can be configured.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (org and body are described), so baseline is 3; the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets GitHub Actions permissions for an organization, but it does not distinguish from similar sibling tools like set_allowed_actions_organization or set_github_actions_default_workflow_permissions_organization.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context on when it is appropriate to invoke.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., permission requirements, side effects, idempotency). For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points, sections) and is arguably too brief given the complexity of the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a complex input schema (nested body object) and no output schema. The description does not explain what permissions can be set, the format of the body, or the effect on the repository. It is insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; the 'body' parameter is left as a generic freeform object with no hints about required fields or structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('GitHub Actions permissions for a repository'). It is distinct from siblings like 'get' or 'organization' versions, but does not explicitly differentiate itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool (e.g., specific scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives like the org-level counterpart). The description is a bare statement without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Set' which implies a mutation, but it does not explain if the operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, it sacrifices detail for brevity, which is acceptable if the tool is simple, but here the tool has a complex body parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a nested object parameter (body) with no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain the expected structure of the body or the access levels. This leaves the agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with basic descriptions for owner, repo, and body. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The body parameter's structure remains vague, but the schema provides a baseline. Score is at baseline due to no value added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Set' and identifies the resource 'level of access for workflows outside of the repository'. It is clear and distinguishes from the sibling 'get' tool. However, it does not specify what access levels are available, which could be clarified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the user needs admin permissions, or when this setting might be needed. The sibling 'get' tool is implied but not explicitly contrasted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral details (e.g., partial vs full update, required authentication, or what the 'body' parameter expects). The schema shows a nested 'body' object, but the description offers no explanation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise for a straightforward action. However, it could benefit from a bit more structure, such as listing key parameters or required context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of a nested 'body' parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the update semantics (e.g., field-level update vs replacement) or what the response looks like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and parameter descriptions are minimal (only the parameter names). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The 'body' parameter lacks detail on allowed properties.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly indicates it updates an environment variable, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools that update other variable types (e.g., org, repo). The verb 'update' and resource 'environment variable' are specific, yet the lack of scope detail weakens clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_environment_variable' or 'delete_environment_variable'. No context about prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like mutation effects, required permissions, or what happens if the variable does not exist. The description is too brief to inform the agent about side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, highly concise and front-loaded. It effectively states the purpose, but being too brief may omit valuable information. Every sentence earns its place, but more detail would improve usefulness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the effect of updating, what fields are required in the body, or the behavior when the variable doesn't exist. Significant gaps for an update operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for its three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain what the 'body' object should contain (e.g., value, visibility).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update an organization variable' states a specific verb and resource, but does not distinguish it from sibling tools like github_actions_create_org_variable or github_actions_delete_org_variable. The purpose is clear but lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as creating, deleting, or getting the variable. No when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It simply says 'Update' but does not explain side effects (e.g., error if group not found), idempotency, or required permissions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence. It is front-loaded and to the point, but could include more detail without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation or updated group object). It also does not detail the expected structure of the body parameter, leaving the agent to infer from the schema's generic description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with basic descriptions for all parameters (org, runner_group_id, body). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a self-hosted runner group for an organization' clearly states the verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, get, delete, or manage runners within a group. However, it lacks specificity about what properties can be updated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are related tools for adding/removing runners from groups or updating runner group permissions. The description does not mention prerequisites like admin permissions or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description only indicates a read operation but provides no details on what the subscription entails, what happens if not subscribed, or any side effects. With no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but lacks structure. Every word earns its place, but more detail could be added without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema or annotations. Description does not explain the return format, what a subscription is, or any preconditions. Incomplete for a tool with no additional metadata.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter descriptions are minimal ('owner', 'repo') and do not add meaning beyond the names. Schema coverage is 100% but provides no additional context for usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'repository subscription', distinguishing it from sibling tools like set or delete. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like set or delete subscription. Does not mention prerequisites or context such as authentication requirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List organization events' without explaining what events are included (e.g., only events visible to the authenticated user? public events?), any side effects (none), or rate limit implications. The description fails to give the agent enough behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that directly states the purpose without any superfluous information. It is concise and front-loaded, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations), the description is far too brief. It omits essential context such as pagination details, event types returned, and how this differs from similar list tools. The description does not adequately round out the tool's function.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes all 4 parameters (username, org, per_page, page) with their types and descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('organization events for the authenticated user'), making the primary action and scope understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'list_events_for_authenticated_user' or 'list_public_org_events', which could cause confusion about which to use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., authentication context) or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others like 'list_public_org_events' for public events or 'list_events_for_authenticated_user' for user-specific events.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention rate limits, pagination behavior, ordering, or that events are returned in reverse chronological order. The description only restates the parameter names without behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it could add brief context (e.g., 'public GitHub activity events') while remaining concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description does not explain the return format, event types, or any potential errors. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, more detail is needed for an agent to use it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but parameter descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'username' for username, standard pagination text for per_page/page). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List public events for a user' clearly states the action ('list') and resource ('public events for a user'), which is distinct from sibling tools like 'list_public_events' (global) and 'list_events_for_authenticated_user' (authenticated events). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_activity_list_public_events for all users or github_activity_list_received_events_for_user). There is no mention of authentication requirements or use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source for behavioral traits. It only states the action and does not disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The input schema parameters (per_page, page) hint at pagination, but the description does not mention it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it may be too sparse; including more context could improve it without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about what the tool returns (e.g., a list of event objects). It fails to mention return format, expected behavior, or any caveats, leaving significant gaps for the AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which already has full coverage (100%) with basic descriptions for each parameter. The tool description does not explain how parameters like 'username' relate to 'received events' or how pagination parameters affect results.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List public events received by a user' clearly states the action (list), the resource (public events received by a user), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_received_events_for_user' (which may include private events) and 'list_public_events_for_user' (which lists public events performed by a user, not received).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context for when not to use it. It simply states the action without any usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'List repository events' and omits details such as pagination behavior, event types included, authentication requirements, rate limits, or output format. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, which is efficient for a simple list operation. However, it may be too terse given the lack of other context; still, it is not verbose and every word contributes to the core message.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has moderate complexity with pagination parameters and no output schema. The description fails to mention return values, event types, ordering, or any side effects. It is not sufficiently complete given the missing output schema and lack of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear explanations for parameters like per_page and page (including links to pagination docs). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List repository events' clearly identifies the verb (list) and resource (repository events), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like list_public_events or list_events_for_authenticated_user, but the resource is specific enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without enough information to decide appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, pagination behavior, or rate limits. The schema covers sorting/pagination, but the description adds no context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no fluff. It is concise, though it could benefit from additional structured information without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, pagination behavior, or how sorting works beyond what is in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters like sort and direction.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (repositories starred by a user). It is distinct from the sibling tool for the authenticated user due to the required username parameter, but the description does not explicitly differentiate them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., list_repos_starred_by_authenticated_user, list_repos_watched_by_user). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the core function. No annotations are provided, so the description should cover aspects like authentication, pagination behavior, or rate limits, but it does not.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is easy to parse. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though could include a bit more context without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a simple list operation with a well-documented schema, the description is somewhat complete. However, it lacks context about authentication requirements and differentiation from similar tools, which are important for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%; both parameters (per_page, page) are described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List repositories watched by the authenticated user' clearly states the action and resource. It differentiates from siblings like 'github_activity_list_repos_watched_by_user' by specifying 'authenticated user', but could explicitly call out the alternative tool for other users.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., listing watched repos for another user). No prerequisites (authentication required) or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, authentication requirements, or side effects on other notifications. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with key action. However, it could be more informative without becoming verbose, such as including one-line guidance on usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, missing annotations, and the presence of a complex body parameter, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the effect of marking notifications as read or the prerequisites, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, but descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'owner' and 'repo' are just labels). The 'body' parameter lacks structure guidance; the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it marks repository notifications as read, which is specific to repo-scoped notifications. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'github_activity_mark_notifications_as_read' which marks all notifications, leaving ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the global mark-as-read tool or listing notifications first. The description lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, such as whether it also updates notifications or unsubscribes, or what 'done' means in terms of thread state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence. It is concise but could be slightly more informative (e.g., 'notification thread'). No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and only one parameter, the description is minimal. It lacks explanation of return value, error cases, or the effect of marking as done. For a simple action, more context would help an agent understand the consequences.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a description for thread_id. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it simply repeats the parameter name. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Mark') and the resource ('a thread') with the state ('done'). It is specific but does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'mark_thread_as_read' or 'delete_thread_subscription', though the name helps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like marking as read or deleting a subscription. No context about typical use cases (e.g., dismissing a notification thread) or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Create', indicating mutation, but omits details like required permissions, rate limits, token expiration, or side effects. The agent is uninformed about important behavioral aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that directly states the tool's action and target, containing no extraneous words or information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return value (e.g., the generated token). It fails to mention what the response contains, leaving the agent uncertain about the outcome. Additionally, no guidance on the 'body' parameter's required structure or optional fields is provided, reducing completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters documented, but the descriptions are minimal ('installation_id' restates the field name, 'body' is a generic 'Request body (JSON object)'). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'installation access token for an app', making the tool's purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_apps_revoke_installation_access_token', which is a closely related operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, context, or when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent without direction for optimal selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, reversibility, authentication requirements, or what happens after deletion. This is insufficient for an irreversible delete operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it may be too terse, missing important context, but within the conciseness dimension, it avoids fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description should provide enough context. It does not explain return values, what constitutes an authorization, or any behavioral details, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter client_id, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already fully documents the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Delete) and the resource (app authorization), providing a specific verb+resource pair. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_apps_delete_token or github_apps_revoke_installation_access_token, and the term 'app authorization' is vague without context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to use or not use, or context for selecting this tool among similar delete operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'Get'. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, what the response contains, or any authentication requirements. The agent is left uninformed about side effects or return structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to parse. However, it could include more useful information without becoming overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description should explain what a repository installation is and what the tool returns. It provides no such context, leaving the agent with an underspecified understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the parameter descriptions are minimal ('owner', 'repo'). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameters, albeit sparsely.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'repository installation for the authenticated app', indicating a specific purpose. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like github_apps_get_installation or github_apps_get_org_installation, which could cause confusion for an agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent with no decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral context. It only says 'Get a subscription plan', which reveals nothing about side effects, authorization requirements, or return value structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise. However, it is so minimal that it risks being under-specified for a tool with no annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about the return value and behavior. It fails to do so, leaving significant gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter described as 'account_id' in both schema and description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already sufficiently defines the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'subscription plan for an account', so the basic action is understandable. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_subscription_plan_for_account_stubbed'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the basic function without disclosing behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or the effect of token scopes. The description is minimal and does not add value beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be slightly more structured to include important context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too brief to provide a complete understanding. It does not mention important aspects such as the scope of repos returned (only those accessible to the user token) or how the installation_id is used. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameters, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'repositories accessible to the user access token'. It correctly implies the action of listing repositories for a specific installation, though it could be more precise by explicitly mentioning the installation context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_apps_list_repos_accessible_to_installation or github_apps_add_repo_to_installation_for_authenticated_user. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context. It only states 'List installations', with no mention of read-only nature, pagination, or any side effects. The existance of per_page and page params in the schema hints at pagination, but the description does not confirm this.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence. It is front-loaded with the core action. There is no fluff, but it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema. The description only covers the basic purpose. It does not mention that results are paginated, how to filter (since, outdated), or what the response contains. While the schema covers parameters, the description should provide more context for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%—all 4 parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no parameter information, but baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage. The description does not need to repeat parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List installations for the authenticated app', specifying the verb (list) and resource (installations). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_installation or list_repos. However, it could be more explicit about the scope (all installations for the app).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_apps_get_installation or github_apps_list_installation_repos_for_authenticated_user. There is no mention of prerequisites, filters, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only says 'stubbed' without explaining behavioral implications (e.g., returns mock data). This leaves agents unsure about side effects or data accuracy.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise and front-focuses on the action. However, 'stubbed' could be clarified without making it verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and missing annotations; the description fails to explain what 'stubbed' means or how it differs from the real version, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists subscriptions for the authenticated user, and 'stubbed' distinguishes it from the non-stubbed version. However, it doesn't explain what 'stubbed' means.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus the non-stubbed sibling. The agent must infer the difference from the name, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must shoulder the burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Redeliver', with no mention of side effects, idempotency, permissions, rate limits, or return value. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no superfluous words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is overly minimal. It omits important context such as what happens after redelivery, whether the delivery ID must exist, or any error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'delivery_id' described in the schema. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the baseline score is 3 given the high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Redeliver' and the resource 'a delivery for an app webhook', distinguishing it from similar tools for orgs and repos (e.g., github_orgs_redeliver_webhook_delivery). However, it adds little beyond the tool name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_orgs_redeliver_webhook_delivery or github_repos_redeliver_webhook_delivery. The description lacks any contextual cues about prerequisites or decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read operation but does not specify what data is returned (e.g., budget details, limits). With no annotations, the description is adequate but leaves some ambiguity about the response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence, very concise. However, it could be slightly expanded to improve usefulness without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so the description should explain the return value (e.g., budget object with fields). It fails to do so. Also, with many sibling tools, a note on differentiation would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but the descriptions are minimal ('org' and 'budget_id'). The description does not elaborate on how to obtain the budget_id or any constraints (e.g., format, where to find it). It adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (a budget by ID for an organization). It distinguishes from sibling billing tools like get_all_budgets, update_budget, delete_budget, which deal with different operations on budgets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it does not mention that listing all budgets should use github_billing_get_all_budgets_org, or that updating requires the update tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not explicitly confirm idempotency, data scope, permissions, or side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could benefit from a brief clarification about the report's content or usage context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what data the report contains, its format, or any filtering behavior beyond the parameters. The tool likely returns a billing report, but the agent has insufficient information to interpret the results. Given the complexity of billing data, the description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions for year, month, and day, and username is described as 'username'. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get billing usage report for a user' clearly states the action (get) and resource (billing usage report for a user). It distinguishes from the org variant by specifying 'user', but does not differentiate from the summary report version, which is a sibling tool. The verb and resource are specific enough for basic understanding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the summary report or org-level report. Given the large number of sibling billing tools, the agent lacks context to choose correctly. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'Update a budget,' implying mutation, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether budget must exist, idempotency, permission requirements). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it could include more detail without becoming verbose, so while efficient, it is not maximally informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, a required JSON body, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the 'body' should contain, what the response looks like, or any constraints (e.g., required fields in body). For a mutation endpoint, this is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, but the descriptions are trivial (parameter names). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. For a tool with a free-form 'body' parameter, explicit guidance on valid fields would be valuable but is absent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a budget for an organization' clearly identifies the action (update) and resource (budget for an organization). It distinguishes itself from sibling billing tools like github_billing_get_budget_org and github_billing_delete_budget_org by implying a write operation. However, it does not specify which aspects of the budget can be updated, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to create vs update, or what prerequisites exist). There is no mention of context, constraints, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only says 'Get a check suite' with no mention of return data, read-only nature, or rate limits. The behavioral footprint is minimal but not sufficiently transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at 4 words. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though it may be overly minimal. Appropriate for a simple get operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse for an agent to understand what the tool returns or how to interpret results. It lacks completeness for effective invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with basic parameter descriptions (owner, repo, check_suite_id). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, achieving a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get a check suite' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_checks_get (which gets a check run), leaving ambiguity about which check entity is targeted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many check-related tools (e.g., github_checks_list_suites_for_ref, github_checks_get) but the description provides no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only states 'List check suites' without detailing behaviors like pagination, rate limiting, or what 'Git reference' means (branch, tag, SHA). Schema has per_page/page but description adds no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words, front-loaded. Could include more context without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema; description lacks details on return values, ordering, or filtering behavior beyond parameter names. Incomplete for a tool with pagination and filters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (all 7 parameters described), so baseline is 3. Description adds no further meaning beyond what schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'List check suites for a Git reference' clearly indicating verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like github_checks_list_for_ref (which lists check runs) or github_checks_list_for_suite.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other check list tools, no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update a check run' implies mutation but gives no details on side effects, authorization requirements, or response behavior. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the impact of the operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the key action. It is efficient with zero wasted words, but the brevity sacrifices substantive detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters including a nested body object and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what fields can be updated, the format of the body, or the effect of the update, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the schema already documents parameter meanings. The description adds no extra parameter-specific context beyond what is in the schema, earning a baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Update a check run'), clearly indicating the action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_checks_create or github_checks_get, which could be confusing in a large set of checks tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as github_checks_create for creating new check runs. No context on prerequisites or scenarios. The description solely states the action without any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states a read operation without mentioning pagination, rate limits, or that it returns a list. The pagination parameters in the schema imply paged results, but the description does not clarify this behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded and minimal, earning high marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not mention the return format (list of assignment objects), pagination behavior, or how to interpret the response. The minimal description fails to provide sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters (classroom_id, page, per_page). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List assignments for a classroom' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_classrooms' and 'list_accepted_assignments_for_an_assignment' by specifying 'for a classroom' and listing assignments, not classrooms or accepted assignments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_accepted_assignments_for_an_assignment' or 'list_classrooms'. The description provides no context on prerequisites, scope, or when to choose this tool over similar ones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'List classrooms' and does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or what data is returned. The pagination parameters are documented in the schema, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with only two words. While it is not verbose, it lacks structure but is efficient. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description is insufficient. It does not mention the scope of classrooms (e.g., for the authenticated user or a specific organization) or the return format. No output schema exists to compensate. More context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both page and per_page have inline descriptions). The tool description does not add any information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List classrooms' clearly states the verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like github_classroom_get_a_classroom and github_classroom_list_assignments_for_a_classroom because the name includes 'list_classrooms'. However, it does not specify scope like 'for the authenticated user'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it should be used to retrieve classroom IDs before calling other classroom-specific tools, but this context is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It fails to disclose side effects (e.g., impact on alert state, permissions required, or whether the autofix is applied to a branch). The short description leaves significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain the purpose of the body parameter, the concept of 'committing' an autofix, or the expected outcome. It is incomplete for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the parameter descriptions are minimal (just parameter names and 'Request body (JSON object)'). The tool description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Commit an autofix for a code scanning alert' clearly states the action and resource. It specifies a verb ('commit') and a resource ('autofix for a code scanning alert'), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_autofix or get_autofix. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies committing an autofix but does not specify prerequisites, context, or when to choose this over github_code_scanning_create_autofix or other related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Delete a CodeQL database' without mentioning side effects (irreversibility), required permissions, or what happens if the database is in use. The behavioral burden is not carried by the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only 4 words, which is too minimal. While concise, it omits critical information about usage and behavior, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context such as the effect of deletion, prerequisites (e.g., existing database), and possible errors. It is incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the parameter names and types imply. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (Delete) and the resource (a CodeQL database). The verb-resource combination is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., when to delete analysis or update default setup). No context about prerequisites or when it is appropriate to delete a database.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether authentication is required, what side effects occur, or whether it downloads data or returns metadata. The sole sentence offers minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it could be slightly more structured to include key details. It is not overly verbose, so it scores well on conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., database file, URL, or metadata). Given the lack of annotations and schema, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, but the descriptions are merely the parameter names ('owner', 'repo', 'language'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but provides no extra semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get a CodeQL database for a repository', which clearly indicates a retrieval operation. However, it does not specify what 'get' returns (e.g., database content or metadata), nor does it differentiate from the sibling 'list_codeql_databases' tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listing databases or deleting them. The description lacks context about prerequisites or when retrieval is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it retrieves a configuration, omitting details about required permissions, behavior when configuration is missing, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return value. It does not. Given the simplicity and lack of annotations, the description is too minimal to be fully informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (owner, repo), but they are minimal. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Get' and the resource 'code scanning default setup configuration'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'update_default_setup' tool. However, it could be more specific about what the configuration entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_default_setup' or other code scanning tools. There is no context about prerequisites or use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that this is a read operation, nor what happens if the sarif_id is invalid or if the upload is not found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no redundant words. Efficient but could be expanded slightly without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, and the description does not explain what is returned. For a simple tool, the lack of return value description leaves the agent uncertain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with minimal descriptions (just the parameter names). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Get information' and the resource 'SARIF upload', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'upload_sarif' and 'get_alert'. However, it does not specify what kind of information is returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_analysis' or 'get_alert'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks important behavioral details: it does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions (e.g., if a repository is not part of the analysis). Without annotations, this minimal description leaves the agent uninformed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence of 10 words – extremely concise. However, it may be too terse; some additional context would improve without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema or annotations, the description should explain what the returned 'analysis status' includes or its possible values. It omits this, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect from the response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Though input schema has 100% coverage, parameter descriptions are trivial (just parameter names). The description adds no clarification about the distinct roles of 'owner/repo' vs 'repo_owner/repo_name', which could confuse an agent about which identifies the variant analysis and which the target repository.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets 'the analysis status of a repository in a CodeQL variant analysis'. It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'analysis status', distinguishing it from related tools like 'get_variant_analysis' which retrieves the overall analysis rather than per-repo status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_variant_analysis'. An agent must infer the difference from the name alone, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies mutation, but there is no mention of required permissions, side effects, limits, or what constitutes a valid configuration. Extremely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, zero wasted words. Extremely concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and a complex nested body parameter, the description fails to explain what fields the body should contain, return values, error handling, or the purpose of the configuration. Severely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, achieving the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a code security configuration' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like get, update, delete, and attach.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., attach or update), nor any prerequisites or conditions for use. The description is silent on context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action, with no mention of effects (e.g., irreversibility), required permissions, or any impact on linked repositories. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the consequences of invoking this tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence that captures the core action. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words. However, it may be too brief to be fully helpful without additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a code security configuration is, that deletion is typically irreversible, or provide any context about the enterprise scope. The agent lacks sufficient information to safely use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters are documented in the schema with only their names as descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context about these parameters, such as the format of enterprise identifier or how to obtain the configuration_id. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description provides no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete', resource 'code security configuration', and scope 'for an enterprise'. The tool name and description together make the purpose unambiguous and distinguish it from sibling tools like 'github_code_security_delete_configuration' which operates at a different level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, there is a sibling tool named 'github_code_security_delete_configuration' that may operate at the organization level, but the description does not clarify the distinction or provide any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states a basic read operation, omitting any mention of authentication requirements, potential side effects (likely none), rate limits, or response structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single 10-word sentence with no fluff. However, it could include slightly more information (e.g., scope or prerequisites) without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description fails to explain what a 'code security configuration' is, what the tool returns (e.g., configuration details), or how it relates to repository settings. This is insufficient for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are minimal ('owner', 'repo'). The tool description adds no additional context about what 'owner' (e.g., organization or user) or 'repo' means, nor does it clarify required format or relationship to the configuration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the code security configuration associated with a repository' is precise: it clearly states the verb (Get) and the resource (code security configuration) specific to a repository, distinguishing it from sibling tools like attach, detach, create, or delete configurations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_configuration, get_default_configurations, or get_repositories_for_configuration. The agent has no context for choosing this over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, output format, or whether it returns a single configuration or list. The description only states 'get' without any additional behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, consisting of five words. It is front-loaded with the key information. However, it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'default configurations' means, how it differs from other get configuration tools, or what the response contains. This is inadequate for a simple retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'org', and the description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves default code security configurations, which is distinct from sibling tools like get_configuration or get_configuration_for_repository. However, it could be more specific by indicating it operates at the organization level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not specify that it retrieves the org-level default, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description only states what it does, not how it behaves or any side effects. This is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that directly states the purpose. It is concise with no wasted words, but it lacks structure or additional context that might be helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has only one parameter but no output schema. The description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., list of configurations, count, etc.) or any other contextual information like the format or pagination. It is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter 'enterprise' with a tautological description 'enterprise'. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'default code security configurations', and the scope 'for an enterprise'. It is specific enough to distinguish from other tools that might get all configurations or configurations for an organization, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_configurations_for_enterprise or get_default_configurations. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without detailing side effects (e.g., whether the previous default is overwritten), required permissions, or any irreversible consequences. This is insufficient for an enterprise-level mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence. It is appropriately front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include critical context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (setting a default for an enterprise), the lack of output schema, and zero annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It omits return values, prerequisites, and interaction with other configurations, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although input schema has 100% description coverage, each parameter description is merely its name ('enterprise', 'configuration_id', 'body'). The tool description adds no additional meaning or context about parameter semantics, such as expected formats or constraints for the 'body' object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set'), the resource ('a code security configuration as a default'), and the scope ('for an enterprise'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'github_code_security_set_configuration_as_default', which presumably operates at the organization level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_code_security_attach_enterprise_configuration' or 'github_code_security_get_default_configurations_for_enterprise'. No context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('Add') but doesn't clarify idempotency, required permissions, error handling, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices useful details that could be included without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover more context: return value, error cases, and relationship to other codespaces secret tools. It only covers the basic action, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage but the descriptions are just the parameter names (e.g., 'org', 'secret_name', 'repository_id'), offering no additional meaning. The tool description adds no extra parameter context, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add selected repository to an organization secret' clearly states the action (add), the resource (repository), and the target (organization secret). This sufficiently distinguishes it from user-level tools, though it doesn't differentiate from other similar add tools like 'github_actions_add_selected_repo_to_org_secret' or 'github_codespaces_set_selected_repos_for_org_secret'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., the secret must exist), or scenarios to avoid. The description lacks any explicit usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The description only says 'Delete', implying a destructive operation, but provides no details on irreversibility, side effects, or authorization needs. This is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks structure and could be expanded to include key details without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what happens on success/failure, any required permissions, or how the operation affects the organization.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, but those descriptions are merely the parameter names (org, username, codespace_name). The description adds no additional context or meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Delete) and resource (codespace from organization). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_codespaces_delete_for_authenticated_user or github_codespaces_delete_org_secret, which are easily confused.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, permissions, or scenarios where this tool should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authorization requirements, or whether the export is a read or write operation. For a tool named 'export', more transparency is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could benefit from more detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and only a single parameter, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain what the export produces, its effects, or any constraints, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'codespace_name' described as itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'export' and resource 'codespace', clearly indicating the action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling codespace tools beyond the name, lacking specificity on what 'export' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description only states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description should disclose read-only nature and any permissions. Only says 'Get', which implies read, but lacks details on whether secret value is returned or if authentication is required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely terse (5 words), but lacks substance. Conciseness is not favored when it sacrifices completeness; every word should provide value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple structure and no output schema, description should at least hint at return format or error cases. It does not, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
High schema coverage (100%) but parameter descriptions are minimal (just 'org' and 'secret_name'). Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but baseline is 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get an organization secret', which is a specific verb+resource. It differentiates from siblings like list_org_secrets and get_repo_secret by focusing on org-level secret retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_org_secrets or get_repo_secret. Does not specify that this retrieves a single secret by name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states it's for the authenticated user, implying authentication, but does not disclose if it's a read-only operation, rate limits, or any side effects. The lack of detail forces reliance on implicit understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema, the description does not describe the return value (e.g., the public key string or object). It also does not mention any related context, such as encryption usage or key rotation. Given the tool's simplicity, it is somewhat adequate but lacks details a new user might need.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, so the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description could explain what the public key is used for (e.g., encrypting secrets), which is absent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Get public key' and the target 'for the authenticated user', which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that also retrieve public keys for different contexts (e.g., repos, orgs), but the name itself distinguishes it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getting a repo or org public key. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It fails to mention any behavioral traits such as idempotency, permissions required, or potential errors (e.g., secret not found). The description is purely functional without operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (1 sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is appropriately concise, though it could include more detail without sacrificing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks important context: it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., secret details, but not the value), the scope of the secret (Codespaces-specific), or any required permissions. Given the absence of an output schema, the description should compensate but does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has descriptions for all 3 parameters, but they are tautological (e.g., owner/owner). Per instructions, since schema description coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds no further meaning to the parameters, so score remains 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a repository secret' clearly indicates the action (get) and the resource (a repository secret within Codespaces). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_or_update, delete, or list by specifying the retrieval operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_repo_secrets or create_or_update_repo_secret, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'Get a secret,' but does not disclose whether the secret is returned in plaintext, whether authentication is required, or any other behavioral traits like rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise, one sentence. However, it is too brief to convey complete information, though it is not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks details about return value (no output schema) and does not distinguish from many similar sibling tools. The description is too sparse for a sensitive operation like retrieving a secret.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'secret_name', so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get a secret') and scope ('for the authenticated user'), but lacks differentiation from sibling tools like github_codespaces_get_org_secret or github_codespaces_get_repo_secret.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other secret retrieval tools (e.g., for org or repo secrets). No alternatives or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List repository secrets' without explaining that it returns secret names (not values), pagination behavior, or required permissions. The schema hints at pagination via 'per_page' and 'page', but the description adds no context about the API's behavior or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is overly terse and omits important details that could be included without sacrificing conciseness. It earns a 4 for efficiency but loses a point for being under-informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and a minimal description. For a list operation, agents need to know the return structure (e.g., list of secret names, not values). The description fails to clarify this, leaving ambiguity about the tool's output. Given the low complexity, a 2 reflects the significant missing information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes the parameters (owner, repo, per_page, page) and their types. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List repository secrets' clearly states the action (list) and target (repository secrets). However, it lacks specificity that these are Codespaces secrets, which is important given sibling tools like 'github_actions_list_repo_secrets' and 'github_dependabot_list_repo_secrets'. The tool name includes 'codespaces', so the purpose is clear but not explicitly distinguished from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'github_actions_list_repo_secrets' or 'github_codespaces_get_repo_secret'. The description does not mention prerequisites, scope (e.g., only lists secret names, not values), or any when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly disclose side effects, authentication requirements, or permission needs. Critical behavioral context is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence. It is concise and to the point, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include scope or usage hints without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is too sparse. It lacks details such as the scope (authenticated user), output expectations, and any relationship to sibling tools. Given no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'secret_name', but the description is just the parameter name. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies due to high coverage, but no value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'list selected repositories' and the target 'for a user secret'. The verb and resource are clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like the org-level counterpart. The tool name includes 'for authenticated user', but the description omits that scope, which could cause ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add, remove, or set repositories for a secret), nor does it mention prerequisites or context. The agent receives no help in deciding to call this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Set selected repositories' without disclosing that this is a destructive operation (replaces all), required permissions, or the secret visibility prerequisite. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for safe usage: no output schema, no explanation of the body parameter structure, no prerequisites or side effects. The tool is a mutation that could have significant impact, but the description provides only the bare minimum.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (basic descriptions for org, secret_name, body). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, e.g., explaining that the body should contain a list of repository IDs. Baseline is 3, and no additional value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set selected repositories for an organization secret' clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'selected repositories for an organization secret'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add' or 'list', though it does not specify that it replaces the entire list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'add_selected_repo_to_org_secret' or 'remove_selected_repo_from_org_secret'. The description lacks context for setting vs. adding repositories.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose side effects, permissions required, or state changes. Minimal information beyond the action itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no redundant information. Efficiently conveys the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description is too minimal. Does not explain return behavior, prerequisites, or constraints (e.g., codespace must exist and be stopped).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (one parameter). The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'codespace_name' to identify which codespace to start. Baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Start a codespace for the authenticated user', which identifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'stop' or 'create' by specifying 'start'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'create' or 'stop'). Does not mention prerequisites or context for starting a codespace.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states a removal action but does not explain consequences (e.g., whether it's reversible, permission requirements, or side effects). The term 'cancel' implies mutation 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no waste. However, its brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it less informative than it could be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema. It fails to explain how users are identified, what the outcome looks like, or any side effects. Given the missing parameters (users not in schema), the description introduces confusion.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage with one parameter 'org' described as 'org'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the organization context. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove users from the Copilot subscription') and scope ('for an organization'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'cancel_copilot_seat_assignment_for_teams'. However, it lacks specifics on which users are removed, especially since the input schema only includes 'org'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'add_copilot_seats_for_users' or 'cancel_copilot_seat_assignment_for_teams'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'get metrics', with no disclosure of read-only nature, rate limits, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation-less tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately concise, though slightly sparse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the good schema coverage, the description lacks any context about the returned metrics, pagination behavior, or how the response looks. No output schema exists, so the description should compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the parameter descriptions in the schema are detailed (e.g., ISO 8601 format for date parameters).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get Copilot metrics for a team', which clearly indicates the verb and resource. It is specific enough to distinguish it from organization-level metrics tools, but the lack of detail on the type of metrics prevents 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., organization-level metrics). No conditions or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function, omitting details like permissions, rate limits, or return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it may be too terse given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for correct usage. It lacks details on what data is returned, permissions needed, and the meaning of the enterprise parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the 'enterprise' parameter description is tautological.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Copilot users usage metrics for a specific day' clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like enterprise or organization-level metrics, though the enterprise parameter's role is not explained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context for selection among the many copilot metrics tools available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'disable' but omits side effects (e.g., does it remove the repository from a selected list?), permission requirements, or whether the action is reversible. The description adds minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action. While very brief, it avoids unnecessary verbosity. It could be slightly more informative but remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what 'disable' means for the repository's Copilot coding agent functionality, nor does it address common user concerns like permissions or reversibility.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema parameter descriptions are just 'org' and 'repository_id', providing no added meaning. The description does not elaborate on parameter format, constraints, or how to obtain these values. High schema coverage does not compensate for low quality descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (disable), resource (repository for Copilot coding agent), and scope (in an organization). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like enable_copilot_coding_agent_for_repository_in_organization.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use or when not to use this tool. It does not mention prerequisites, reversibility, or alternative tools like the enable counterpart. The agent must infer context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states it 'gets' information, failing to mention if the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, or what happens if the organization lacks Copilot access. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, so it does not receive a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with one parameter, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks details on return value format, whether it works for any org, and if it's a read-only operation. Without an output schema, these gaps are noticeable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (one parameter 'org' with type string), but the description only repeats the parameter name. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'Copilot seat information and settings for an organization', indicating the tool retrieves org-level Copilot data. However, among siblings like 'Get Copilot seat details for user' and 'List Copilot seats', it does not explicitly differentiate itself, earning a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'copilot_get_copilot_seat_details_for_user' or 'copilot_list_copilot_seats'). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description only says 'delete' without disclosing whether the operation is permanent, requires specific permissions, or affects other resources.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, efficient and front-loaded, but could include additional context without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is overly minimal. Lacks information about permissions, effects, or return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters, but the descriptions are just the parameter names ('org', 'secret_name') adding no value. The description does not elaborate on the parameters either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete an organization secret' clearly states the action and resource, but does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like github_actions_delete_org_secret or github_codespaces_delete_org_secret, which have identical descriptions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context on whether the secret must exist or if special permissions are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not confirm idempotency, side-effect freedom, or authentication needs. Important behavioral context is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at 4 words, but it effectively communicates the core action and resource. While it could benefit from additional context, it does not waste words. It is front-loaded and minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and the complexity of the domain (Dependabot secrets), the description is under-specified. It does not explain what is returned, whether the secret value is included, or how it relates to other dependabot secret operations. Completeness is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 100% with two parameters (org, secret_name) each having basic descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get an organization secret' clearly indicates the action (get) and the resource (organization secret). Although it is generic, the tool name includes 'dependabot' to disambiguate from similar tools for actions or codespaces. The purpose is specific enough to distinguish from create, delete, or list operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_actions_get_org_secret or github_codespaces_get_org_secret. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not state that the tool is read-only, what the key is used for, or any rate limits. The minimal description leaves the agent uninformed about side effects or requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it is arguably too brief for a tool that should clarify its purpose among siblings. No unnecessary words, but it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description is incomplete. It does not mention that this is for Dependabot secrets, nor does it explain the return value or typical usage context. The presence of sibling tools with overlapping names makes this gap significant.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter names. It does not clarify that 'owner' and 'repo' refer to the repository owner and name, which is already implied.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('repository public key'). However, given the existence of sibling tools with similar names (e.g., github_actions_get_repo_public_key), it does not differentiate that this is specifically for Dependabot, which reduces precision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other public key retrieval tools for GitHub Actions or Codespaces. The description lacks context about prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It only states the basic action (list) without disclosing that it is a read-only operation, requires authentication, or supports pagination (though pagination parameters exist in schema). The description fails to provide essential behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the key information. It avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include scope or behavior without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (18 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not mention return values, pagination behavior, or any typical output structure. The tool has many filters and options, but the description provides no context beyond listing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already explains parameters sufficiently.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (Dependabot alerts) with scope (for an organization). It is specific and directly derived from the tool name. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list for enterprise or repo, which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidelines are provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Given the large number of sibling tools, this omission is significant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update', indicating mutation, but lacks details on what is updated, side effects, required permissions, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words, effectively communicating the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to use the 'body' parameter or what the tool returns, leaving the agent with significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema parameter names, such as explaining the expected fields in the 'body' object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update a Dependabot alert', which is a verb-resource pair. It is clear but does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_dependabot_get_alert or github_dependabot_list_alerts_for_repo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. There is no information on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the basic purpose, with no disclosure of side effects, output format, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a potentially expensive or state‐reading operation, this lack of transparency is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence. It is front‐loaded with the key action. However, it could include additional structured details (e.g., about the output) without harming conciseness. For its minimal length, it is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'diff of dependencies' entails, what the output format is, or how to correctly specify the commit range via 'basehead'. The context for an agent to use this tool effectively is lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'basehead') and add little beyond the parameter names. Only 'name' has a meaningful description. The tool description does not further clarify parameter semantics, such as the expected format of 'basehead' (e.g., commit range 'base...head'). Thus, just meets baseline but does not exceed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get a diff of the dependencies between commits', clearly indicating the tool's purpose. The verb 'Get' and resource 'diff of dependencies' are specific. The tool name includes 'diff_range', reinforcing the concept. However, it does not elaborate on what 'between commits' means (e.g., comparing two specific commits or a range). Still, it is distinct from sibling tools like 'github_dependency_graph_create_repository_snapshot' and 'github_dependency_graph_export_sbom'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tools include many other GitHub API operations, but no differentiation is offered. An agent would have no help deciding between this and other dependency-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose side effects, authentication needs, or irreversible consequences. It only states the action without any behavioral context, leaving the agent unaware of impacts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loading the action. It is efficient but could include a brief phrase to improve clarity without adding bulk.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description lacks context about the operation's effects, prerequisites, or response. A delete operation warrants more thorough explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds no additional meaning. It repeats the action but does not clarify parameter roles or relationships.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete an organization assignment' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (organization assignment). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add' or 'get' based on the verb, but could be more specific about what 'assignment' refers to.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., bulk remove). The agent must infer from the name alone, which risks misuse if the correct action is bulk removal or if the assignment context is unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'list', implying a read operation without explicit mention of idempotence, side effects, or pagination behavior. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but its brevity omits useful context, making it slightly under-informative for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should explain return format or behavior (e.g., list of team objects). It only states 'list', leaving the agent to infer the response structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not repeat parameter details. However, it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List enterprise teams' clearly states the verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_enterprise_teams_get or github_enterprise_teams_create, which are for single team retrieval or creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get, create, update), nor any context about pagination or enterprise scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose side effects (e.g., creates a new gist under the authenticated user). The term 'fork' is implicit but not explicit about ownership change or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence. No wasted words, but it could include more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too brief for a tool with no annotations or output schema. Fails to explain the full behavior of forking, including that it results in a new gist owned by the user.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with one required parameter 'gist_id'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter name, but baseline is 3 for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Fork a gist' clearly states the action and resource. However, it does not distinguish from other gist-related tools like create or star, which an agent might confuse.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create, list_forks). No context provided about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It simply states the operation without disclosing behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or the nature of the returned data. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise, single sentence. No fluff, but could benefit from a brief note on usage. Structure is clean and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so description should clarify return value. It does not specify that the tool returns a gist revision object. Given the complexity of gist revisions, more detail is needed for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond parameter names. It does not explain what 'sha' represents (e.g., the revision hash) or how it relates to the gist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get a gist revision', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'github_gists_get' (which retrieves the latest revision) by specifying 'revision'. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not elaborate on what a revision is.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_gists_get' or 'github_gists_get_comment'. The description fails to provide context for selection among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination, return format, or read-only nature. The schema includes pagination params, but the description does not explain how they affect behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (5 words). It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it could be slightly expanded to add context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with optional pagination params and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It conveys the core function, but lacks details on scope (only own gists) and pagination behavior. Considering the schema already provides parameter details, a score of 3 is fair.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the name, but the schema already documents parameters well. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (gists), specifying the scope (for the authenticated user). It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_gists_list_for_user and github_gists_list_public by implying ownership, though not explicitly stating 'own gists'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as list_for_user, list_public, or list_starred. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, required authentication, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (4 words), which is efficient but omits critical details. It is not verbose, but the lack of information reduces its usefulness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and the presence of a nested object parameter, the description should ideally explain what the 'body' should contain (e.g., the updated comment text). It does not, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the schema descriptions are merely parameter names ('gist_id', 'comment_id', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no additional meaning, failing to clarify the expected structure of the 'body' object or the purpose of the identifiers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a gist comment' uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('gist comment'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, and get. It is unambiguous and direct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_gists_create_comment or github_gists_delete_comment. Lacks context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only operation but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or the structure of the returned commit object. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single-sentence description is concise but ultra-minimal. It conveys the essential purpose without wasting words, but it could benefit from additional structure or detail to better support agent selection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain what information the commit object contains, which could lead to uncertainty about whether this tool meets the agent's needs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters (owner, repo, commit_sha) are described in the schema with their names, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without improvement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('a commit object'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that get other resources like blobs or refs. However, it does not elaborate on the scope or nature of the commit object.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where sibling tools would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states 'Get,' implying a read operation, but fails to mention idempotency, error cases, or permissions. The bare minimum is not met.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately concise for a simple GET tool, though it lacks structure or additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what a network configuration is or what the response contains. It does not, leaving significant gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the schema parameter descriptions are just parameter names. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, resulting in no added value. Baseline 3 applies due to coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'hosted compute network configuration for an organization,' clearly indicating the action. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like `get_network_settings_for_org` or `list_network_configurations_for_org`, missing differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, what happens if no restrictions are set, or rate limits. The term 'interaction restrictions' is not explained, leaving the agent without crucial context about the tool's effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it may be overly terse, sacrificing completeness for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema and the presence of multiple closely related sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what an 'interaction restriction' is, what the return value contains, or provide examples, limiting the agent's ability to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (only 'org' parameter), but the schema description is minimal (just 'org'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get interaction restrictions for an organization' clearly states the action ('get') and the resource ('interaction restrictions for an organization'). It is specific enough to differentiate from siblings that target repos or users, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the similar siblings for repos or authenticated users. No prerequisites or context are provided, leaving the agent without decision support for selecting the correct variant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get interaction restrictions' without stating that it is a read-only operation, what the response contains, or any permissions or rate limits. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence of 5 words, front-loaded with the key action and resource. While efficient, it could be slightly expanded with useful context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the return value includes (e.g., the list of restrictions, their format). It also lacks context about the scope being repo-level vs inherited org restrictions. The description is incomplete for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% as both parameters (owner, repo) have descriptions, albeit minimal ('owner', 'repo'). The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get interaction restrictions for a repository', specifying the verb (Get), resource (interaction restrictions), and scope (repository). It distinguishes from sibling tools for org and authenticated user by explicitly mentioning 'repository'. However, it lacks a brief definition of what interaction restrictions are.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_restrictions_for_org or get_restrictions_for_authenticated_user. The description does not provide criteria for choosing between scopes or mention any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a write operation but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects (e.g., creation triggers notifications), rate limits, or error conditions. With no annotations, the description should provide this context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, which is efficient. However, it lacks any structure (e.g., no separation of purpose from usage). Still, it avoids unnecessary verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the 'body' parameter (a JSON object), the scope of the milestone (repository), or what the tool returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters (owner, repo, body). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a milestone' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (milestone). It is specific and unambiguous, but does not add context about the repository or differentiate from other milestone operations like update or delete. However, the verb alone distinguishes it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as update_milestone or delete_milestone. There is no mention of prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get an issue comment' without mentioning required authentication, potential rate limits, side effects (none), or response format. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and minimal description, the tool lacks completeness. The agent receives no information about the return value structure or any linking behavior (e.g., comment_id format, relationship to issue). For a simple GET operation, more context would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions that are simply the parameter names (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'comment_id'). The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides basic semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get an issue comment' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (issue comment). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, or update, though it doesn't explicitly highlight that it is a read-only operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_issues_list_comments or github_issues_get. It lacks explicit context about prerequisites or scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get a milestone' without mentioning that it is a read-only operation, returns a single milestone object, or any authentication needs. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, perfectly concise. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the key action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is very brief and lacks information on what the tool returns (no output schema). For a simple read operation, it should at least mention that it returns milestone details. Incomplete 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, but descriptions are just parameter names. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Rating is baseline 3 as schema covers the parameters, but description adds no value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a milestone' clearly states the action (get) and resource (milestone). It is a specific verb+resource pair, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_milestones, which also deal with milestones.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as github_issues_list_milestones or github_issues_create_milestone. No context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the basic action and scope, omitting details like pagination (relevant per schema), rate limits, or that the filter parameter changes results. The behavioral transparency is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, very concise. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity. It could be improved by adding a brief note on parameters or alternatives while maintaining conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 12 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the scope of results, how to use filters, or what the output looks like. More context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 because the schema already provides adequate semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list', resource 'issues', and the scope 'assigned to the authenticated user'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_issues_list_for_authenticated_user, which likely returns all issues. However, it does not mention that the filter parameter can return other types of issues, slightly narrowing the perceived purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no usage guidelines. It does not explain when to use this tool versus alternative issue listing tools (e.g., list_for_repo, list_for_org). Agents have no guidance on tool selection based on context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits beyond the schema. It does not mention pagination (though schema has per_page/page), permission requirements, sorting, or that this is a read operation. The minimal description fails to inform the agent of important behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (three words). It is front-loaded and has no redundant text. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (likely a list of comments). It also omits the filtering capabilities hinted by optional parameters (since, per_page, page). For a list-oriented tool, this lack of completeness is a gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%—all 6 parameters have descriptions. The tool's description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (issue comments). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling 'github_issues_list_comments_for_repo', which also lists issue comments but at the repository level. The requirement for issue_number in the schema implies it's per-issue, but the description lacks that specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_issues_list_comments_for_repo' or 'github_pulls_list_review_comments'. The agent is given no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, or filtering. The input schema includes parameters for these, but the description adds no extra context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with no wasted words. However, it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, no annotations, and the description is minimal. It fails to specify whether comments are listed across all issues or for a specific issue, leaving important context unclear given the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with all parameters described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already provided, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action and resource: 'List issue comments for a repository'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_issues_list_comments' which likely lists comments for a specific issue, leaving ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large number of sibling tools, such context is essential for correct selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, that it returns paginated results, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic listing action. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core action. It achieves conciseness but could slightly expand on scope or pagination without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with comprehensive schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits details about what constitutes a 'dependency', the return format, and pagination behavior, leaving gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds no additional value beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List dependencies an issue is blocking' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (dependencies an issue is blocking). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'github_issues_list_dependencies_blocked_by' through the directional preposition 'blocking' vs 'blocked by'. However, it could mention the scope (owner, repo, issue_number) for clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'github_issues_list_dependencies_blocked_by'. The description does not include any context about issue dependencies or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination behavior, or rate limits. The minimal description leaves the agent unaware of important characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Efficient, though could benefit from slightly more detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with sibling tools, the description lacks completeness. Does not explain what issue events are, how pagination works beyond schema, or contrast with similar tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the action (list) and resource (issue events for a repository). It is clear but does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_issues_list_events or github_issues_list_events_for_timeline.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'list' implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that this is non-destructive. It also fails to mention pagination behavior, return format, or any limitations. For a tool with 14 parameters and no output schema, more behavioral context is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (three words) and front-loaded. Every word is meaningful. While it could benefit from a bit more context, it avoids verbosity and is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely lacking. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or any edge cases. An agent would have to rely entirely on the schema and name to understand usage, which is insufficient for a well-informed selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description 'List repository issues' adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The schema's parameter descriptions are already thorough, so the description does not need to compensate. However, it does not provide any overarching context for parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List repository issues' uses a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly state that the tool is scoped to a particular repository (owner/repo required by the schema), the name and required parameters make this clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like `github_issues_list_for_org` or `github_issues_list_for_authenticated_user` which cover different scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools for listing issues at different scopes (org, authenticated user, global), but no explicit context or exclusions are given to help an agent choose the correct one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'list,' implying a read operation, but does not specify pagination behavior, response structure, or any side effects. The schema describes per_page and page, but the description itself adds no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. While it is not structured into sections, it is appropriately sized and front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, though it could benefit from more detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'issue field values' are, how they relate to other issue operations, or what the response looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema (owner, repo, issue_number with simple descriptions; per_page and page with detailed pagination info). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (issue field values for an issue). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_issue_field_values and set_issue_field_values as a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from potential list tools for other issue-related resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about scenarios that favor listing field values over adding, setting, or deleting them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only says 'List labels' implying a read operation, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or whether it returns label objects or something else.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for its simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description should clarify the return value structure. It only says 'list labels', leaving ambiguity about what data the agent will receive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter names and basic types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List labels for issues in a milestone' clearly states the action (list) and resource (labels scoped to a milestone), differentiating it from sibling tools like list_labels_for_repo or list_labels_on_issue.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling tools that list labels in different contexts, the agent lacks context to choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It only says 'List labels for a repository,' omitting details like pagination, authentication needs, or read-only nature. The schema hints at pagination (per_page, page), but the description does not confirm.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is concise, but could include a bit more context without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should explain the return value (e.g., array of label objects) and pagination behavior. It does neither, leaving the agent with incomplete expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, so each parameter is already described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists labels for a repository. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_issues_list_labels_on_issue or github_issues_list_labels_for_milestone, which also list labels but in different contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it lists all repo-wide labels, as opposed to labels scoped to an issue or milestone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description solely states the action, failing to disclose behavioral traits like whether the label must exist, authorization requirements, or side effects. The burden is high but unmet.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence, concise and to the point. However, it could be slightly more structured or include brief context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimally complete for a simple operation, but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., issue must exist, label must be applied) and does not reference sibling tools for clarity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but the parameter descriptions are trivial (just repeating names). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove a label from an issue' clearly states the action and resource, but does not differentiate it from similar sibling tools like github_issues_remove_all_labels or github_issues_set_labels.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as github_issues_remove_all_labels for removing all labels or github_issues_set_labels for replacing labels.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action. It does not reveal whether the operation is destructive, requires special permissions, or affects sub-issue ordering. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (3 words), which is efficient but slightly sacrifices clarity. It earns a 4 for being short and to the point, though it could benefit from a bit more detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool modifies sub-issues, has no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to explain the effect of reprioritization (e.g., changes to order or priority). It lacks essential context for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% but each parameter description is just the parameter name (e.g., 'owner'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Reprioritize sub-issue' clearly indicates a verb (reprioritize) and resource (sub-issue), distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_sub_issue' or 'remove_sub_issue'. However, it lacks detail on what reprioritizing entails (e.g., changing order or priority field).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'add_sub_issue', 'remove_sub_issue', or 'list_sub_issues'. The description offers no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects, required permissions, or behavior when the issue is already unlocked. This is insufficient for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is concise (only three words), it sacrifices valuable context. It lacks structure and does not earn its place by adding sufficient information beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits details about return values, error conditions, and any constraints, making it insufficient for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter (owner, repo, issue_number). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Unlock an issue' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating its purpose to reverse a lock operation. It pairs well with the sibling tool github_issues_lock, providing clear differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., issue must be locked) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description lacks behavioral details. It does not disclose write permissions, side effects (e.g., whether the comment remains visible), or whether the action is reversible. The description carries the full burden but provides minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the effect of unpinning and any preconditions. It is too minimal for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% but the descriptions are just the property names ('owner', 'repo', 'comment_id'), adding no real meaning. According to guidelines, high coverage gives a baseline of 3, and the tool description adds no additional parameter context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Unpin an issue comment' clearly states the verb (unpin) and resource (issue comment), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from its sibling 'github_issues_pin_comment' by specifying the reverse action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool (e.g., after pinning a comment) or mention any prerequisites like the comment being pinned. It also does not exclude any scenarios or suggest alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only says 'Get all commonly used licenses'. Does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, authentication, or what qualifies as 'commonly used'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, concise. Could be slightly more informative but no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple list tool with full schema coverage but no output schema. Description lacks explanation of return format or criteria for 'commonly used', but is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (featured, per_page, page). Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states it retrieves all commonly used licenses. It distinguishes from siblings like github_licenses_get (single license) and github_licenses_get_for_repo (license for a repo), but 'commonly used' is somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings exist but are not mentioned. Does not specify context like filtering needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, required permissions, or side effects. The phrase 'Get' implies idempotency but no explicit behavioral traits are stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no extraneous words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently and is well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about the return format or expected behavior. It does not explain what data the tool returns (e.g., license metadata, file content). This is inadequate for a tool with simple input but no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains the parameters (owner, repo, ref). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The ref parameter's description is detailed, but the overall parameter semantics are adequately covered by the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get the license for a repository' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like github_licenses_get (which gets a specific license by SPDX key) and github_licenses_get_all_commonly_used (which lists common licenses), though it could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., repository-level license).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the action without context on prerequisites or exclusions. The agent cannot determine when to use this over other license-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether authentication is required, whether the result is a list or single object, or any error conditions. For a read-only retrieval, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, it could be expanded slightly to include behavioral context without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It implies that the operation returns a list of API versions, but it does not specify the output format or any constraints. For a simple tool, this is acceptable but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (no parameters), so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable since there are no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get all API versions' clearly states the verb (get) and resource (all API versions). It is specific and unambiguous, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools. However, sibling tools are from different GitHub API sections, so context helps disambiguate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about prerequisites, scope, or typical use cases. An agent would need to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., migration not found), or any other behavioral traits. This is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It is as concise as possible while still conveying the basic purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (migration status retrieval) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a migration status is, possible values, or how to interpret the response. The 'exclude' parameter is undefined. More context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names ('migration_id', 'exclude'). It does not explain the required format of migration_id or what exclude excludes (e.g., specific repositories?). No value added beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a user migration status, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_status_for_org' by including 'for_authenticated_user'. However, it does not explain what a 'migration' is in this context, which is a minor gap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, 'list_for_authenticated_user' could be used first to find a migration ID, and 'get_status_for_org' is for org-level migrations. The description lacks any usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create...' without describing side effects, authentication requirements, or what 'custom property inclusion' entails. The tool is a write operation, but no details on success/failure behavior, rate limits, or permissions are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of OIDC custom property inclusion, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the purpose of custom property inclusion, what the request body should contain, or what the response indicates. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage: parameters are named 'enterprise' and 'body' with minimal descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since schema provides basic info, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('OIDC custom property inclusion for an enterprise'), but does not differentiate from the sibling tool `github_oidc_create_oidc_custom_property_inclusion_for_org`, which creates the same entity at the org level. The purpose is clear but lacks distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `github_oidc_create_oidc_custom_property_inclusion_for_org` or other OIDC tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios that warrant enterprise-level inclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state that it's non-destructive or safe. Missing details on authentication requirements or potential errors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words, front-loading the action and resource effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return format. It does not, leaving the agent unaware of what to expect in the response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the 'org' parameter with a basic description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('customization template for an OIDC subject claim for an organization'), effectively distinguishing from the sibling 'update' tool. However, it does not clarify what exactly the customization template contains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or related tools like the update counterpart or other OIDC tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. It only states the action without behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single efficient sentence with no fluff. Could benefit from slightly more structure, but it is concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given average complexity with required parameters, the description lacks important context such as how to find role_id or what happens on success/failure. No output schema or annotations to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% description coverage, but parameter descriptions are trivial (just the name). The tool description adds no additional meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'assign an organization role to a user', matching the name and specifying action, object, and target. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool `github_orgs_assign_team_to_org_role` for teams.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `github_orgs_assign_team_to_org_role`, nor any context on prerequisites or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the cancellation is reversible, what happens to the invitation, or any authentication requirements. The description is too minimal to inform the agent of side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of four words, which is maximally concise with no superfluous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the cancellation effect, any prerequisites, or possible errors. It is incomplete for an agent to use reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters, though the descriptions are just the parameter names ('org', 'invitation_id') and add no extra meaning. The tool description does not elaborate on the parameters, so it meets baseline but does not add value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Cancel an organization invitation' clearly states the action (cancel) and the resource (organization invitation). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'github_orgs_create_invitation' by using the verb 'cancel' versus 'create'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listing invitations or performing other organization actions. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the action without indicating the return type (e.g., boolean), side effects, or that it is a safe read operation. Missing details on what 'check' entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the key action. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at the response format (e.g., boolean, message). It does not provide any information about the return value or behavior. The description is too minimal for a tool that requires clarity on what 'membership' status is returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions in the schema are tautological (just 'org' and 'username'). The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameters, such as expected format or examples. Schema coverage does not compensate for the lack of semantic enrichment.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Check public organization membership for a user' clearly states the verb 'Check', the resource 'public organization membership', and the target 'user'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_orgs_check_membership_for_user (private membership) and github_orgs_list_public_members (list all).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_orgs_check_membership_for_user or github_orgs_list_public_members. It does not specify that this is for public membership only, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'convert', implying a mutation, but gives no details on required permissions, reversibility, side effects (e.g., loss of org access), or rate limits. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of organization membership management and the presence of many sibling tools, the description lacks context about side effects, prerequisites (e.g., user must be a member), and return values. No output schema exists, so additional behavioral details are needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), though the descriptions are minimal (just the parameter names). The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: converting an organization member to outside collaborator. It uses a specific verb ('Convert') and identifies the resource ('organization member') and target state ('outside collaborator'), which distinguishes it from siblings like remove_member or remove_outside_collaborator.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The description is purely declarative without context on when conversion is appropriate or what the implications are.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description only states 'Create' with no disclosure of behavioral traits such as irreversibility, permission requirements, side effects, or rate limits. The agent is left to assume standard mutation behavior without additional insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently states the purpose. It front-loads the action. It is concise and not verbose, though it could be slightly expanded for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool lacks an output schema and annotations. The brief description fails to explain what the request body should contain, what the response will be, or any constraints (e.g., required fields in body). For a creation tool, this omission leaves the agent without critical information for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both 'org' and 'body' have descriptions), but those descriptions are trivial ('org', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no further meaning to the parameters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema provides the minimum.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create issue type for an organization' clearly indicates the verb (create), resource (issue type), and scope (organization). The verb 'create' distinguishes it from sibling tools like update, delete, or list issue types, though no explicit differentiation is provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list, update, delete). No context is given about prerequisites, required permissions, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Create or update' but does not reveal whether the operation is idempotent, whether it overwrites existing values, what permissions are required, or any side effects like rate limiting or resource consumption. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single 8-word sentence that efficiently conveys the basic purpose. However, it lacks any structure (no parameter details, no usage notes). For a tool with a complex nested body parameter and no annotations, more structure would be beneficial. It is minimally adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of output schema, annotations, and detailed parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the relationship between custom property values and definitions, error handling, or success indicators. An agent using this tool would lack critical context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema description coverage is 100%, the descriptions are minimal ('org' for org parameter, 'Request body (JSON object)' for body). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond these terse schema descriptions. It does not explain that 'org' should be the organization name or that 'body' should contain property key-value pairs. With a baseline of 3 due to coverage, the description fails to compensate for poor schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as creating or updating custom property values for organization repositories. It uses a specific verb ('create or update') and resource ('custom property values for organization repositories'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_or_update_organization_definition' which deals with property definitions, and 'get_organization_values' which retrieves values.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that custom property definitions must exist), nor does it compare to sibling tools like get_organization_values or delete. Without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, an agent cannot make informed decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'Get' implies a read operation, but there is no disclosure of behavior like what happens if the property does not exist, authentication requirements, or response structure. Significant gaps remain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though it could benefit from a more structured format that front-loads key information. The brevity is acceptable but not exceptional.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description does not explain what a custom property definition is, what the response contains, or potential error conditions. It is incomplete for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters, but those descriptions are merely the parameter names ('org', 'custom_property_name'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'custom property for an organization', making the basic purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from closely related siblings like get_organization_definitions (plural) or get_organization_values, which could lead to confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to get a single definition vs all definitions vs values). There is no mention of prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states a destructive action without indicating permissions required, irreversibility, effects on related data, or any constraints on the bulk operation. The description is insufficient for safe agent decision-making.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. It lacks structure (no usage notes, no parameter hints). Adequate length but not optimal for information delivery.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a bulk delete operation with a free-form body parameter and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It omits essential details like how to specify attestations, expected behavior, error conditions, and post-deletion verification. The presence of many siblings further necessitates more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema description coverage is 100%, the descriptions are minimal: 'org' and 'Request body (JSON object)' with no additional meaning. The description does not clarify what keys the body should contain or how to specify which attestations to delete, failing to add value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete attestations in bulk' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (attestations) with scope 'in bulk', distinguishing it from related tools that delete by ID or subject digest.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_orgs_delete_attestations_by_id or github_orgs_delete_attestations_by_subject_digest. No usage context or exclusion criteria are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral details such as idempotency, permission requirements, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it could benefit from additional context without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and minimal parameter descriptions, the tool description fails to explain return values, effects, or any additional context needed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are trivial (just parameter names). The tool description adds no additional meaning for 'org' or 'subject_digest' beyond what the parameter names imply.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete', the resource 'attestations', and the identifier 'subject digest'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_orgs_delete_attestations_bulk and github_orgs_delete_attestations_by_id by specifying the deletion method.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete by ID or bulk delete). No context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits like side effects, permissions needed, or reversibility. It merely says 'Disable', which is insufficient for an agent to understand the implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence), which is concise but at the expense of important details. It is not well-structured or front-loaded with key information beyond the action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and only two parameters, the description should explain return values, side effects, and how to obtain the repository_id. It fails to do so, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions ('org', 'repository_id') are tautological and add no meaning. The description does not explain what the parameters represent (e.g., organization name, numeric repository ID), so it adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Disable), the resource (selected repository for immutable releases), and the context (in an organization). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like enable or set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., enable, set, get). No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'enable' without explaining whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if already enabled, required permissions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at one sentence and front-loaded. While efficient, it could include more useful information without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what immutable releases are, the scope of the operation, or any return values. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names 'org' and 'repository_id' already present in the schema. No clarification that repository_id is a numeric ID or how to obtain it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (enable) and the resource (a selected repository for immutable releases in an organization). However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like `github_repos_enable_immutable_releases`, which may cause confusion about when to use the org-level variant.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `github_repos_enable_immutable_releases` or other immutable releases settings tools. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or examples given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states it gets an organization, implying a read operation, but does not mention required permissions, rate limits, what data is returned, or whether the result is cached. This is insufficient for a tool with no structural metadata.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded. However, it might be too brief given the lack of other explanatory content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with no output schema and one parameter, the description could be sufficient, but it omits details like whether it returns full organization details or just metadata. Additional context about typical use would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, with one parameter 'org' described as 'org'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this tautological schema description. Baseline 3 applies since coverage is high, but the description does not enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get an organization' clearly states the action (get) and resource (organization), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform create, update, delete, or list operations. However, it is very minimal and lacks specificity about what details are retrieved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_orgs_list or github_orgs_get_membership. There is no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions under which this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not mention permissions required, rate limits, side effects, or the nature of the settings returned. The description adds no detail beyond the function name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It contains no unnecessary words, but it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose. While efficient, it leaves out potentially helpful context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, read operation), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks explanation of the response format or what the 'immutable releases settings' entail. Without an output schema, more context would be beneficial for an agent to interpret the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the only parameter 'org' is described in the schema). The description does not add any additional meaning or context to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('immutable releases settings') scoped to an organization. It is specific and immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_orgs_get_immutable_releases_settings_repositories, which could lead to confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions that would make this tool preferable to other org settings tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or response structure, which is critical for a read operation without output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence, but it lacks any structured breakdown (e.g., explaining the org parameter or return value), leaving it somewhat under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should explain what the membership response contains. It does not, leaving the agent uninformed about the return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage but the parameter description is merely 'org', adding no meaningful context. The description itself does not elaborate on the parameter's purpose or expected format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'organization membership', and the scope 'for the authenticated user', making it specific and distinguishable from siblings like 'get_membership_for_user'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_membership_for_user' for other users), leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, possible error responses (e.g., 404 if not a member), or the nature of the membership data returned. The description carries the full burden but adds no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., membership state, role). For a 'get' operation, the return value is a critical missing piece. The description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter names; 'org' and 'username' are self-explanatory, but no format or example is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get organization membership for a user' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from similar tools like 'github_orgs_check_membership_for_user' by indicating a retrieval operation, but lacks specificity about what details are returned (e.g., role, state).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'github_orgs_check_membership_for_user' or 'github_orgs_get_membership_for_authenticated_user'. The description does not include conditions for use or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description lacks behavioral context such as read-only nature, error conditions for missing version, or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short, front-loaded sentence. Efficient but could benefit from minimal structure (e.g., bullet points).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three required parameters and no output schema, the description omits what a ruleset version is and what the response contains, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are merely parameter names ('org', 'ruleset_id', 'version_id') and add no semantic value. The tool description adds no extra meaning, so it fails to compensate for the inadequate schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get organization ruleset version' clearly states the action (get) and resource (organization ruleset version). It distinguishes from siblings like github_orgs_get_org_ruleset_history by specifying 'version'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as listing versions or comparing rule sets. No prerequisites or limitations provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get', which implies read-only, but does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or response details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence of 8 words with no redundancy. Every word contributes to the purpose; highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, but it does not. It also omits any context about prerequisites or typical usage patterns. Incomplete for a read operation with three required parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage, but each parameter description is just the parameter name (tautological). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get a webhook delivery for an organization webhook', specifying verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like github_repos_get_webhook_delivery or github_apps_get_webhook_delivery, which have similar names and descriptions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listing all deliveries or redelivering. The description lacks any contextual hints about prerequisites or intended use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function, omitting whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, pagination behavior (beyond schema), or rate limits. The agent cannot assess safety or side effects from this description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose. However, it may be too terse given the complexity and context; a slightly more informative description would be justified without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with pagination, the description lacks completeness. It does not mention the return format or differentiate from similar tools like github_apps_get_org_installation. With no output schema, the agent is left guessing what data is returned. The sibling set is large, and more context is needed for proper tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameters (org, per_page, page) are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List app installations for an organization' clearly states the verb (List), resource (app installations), and scope (for an organization). It distinguishes from siblings like github_apps_list_installations (lists for the authenticated app) and github_apps_get_org_installation (gets a single installation). However, it lacks additional context to fully differentiate from all similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_apps_list_installations), nor does it mention prerequisites or context for choosing it. The agent must infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description provides no behavioral details beyond the basic action. With no annotations, the description should disclose traits like read-only nature, authentication requirements, or side effects, but it does not.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence. It is front-loaded but could be slightly more descriptive without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not mention pagination or return value details, and with no output schema, more context would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain what 'organizations for a user' entails.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (organizations for a user). However, it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like github_orgs_list and github_orgs_list_for_authenticated_user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behaviors. It doesn't mention pagination, authentication, filtering, or any side effects. The description is too brief to be transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at 3 words. No wasted sentences, but could benefit from a bit more structure (e.g., hint about filters).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, 5 parameters including pagination and filters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, pagination behavior, or filter options beyond what's in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List organization members' clearly states the tool's function (list members of an org) and is distinct from sibling tools like list_blocked_users or list_outside_collaborators. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., list_public_members, list_outside_collaborators). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description fails to mention behavioral traits such as pagination, authentication requirements, or the default behavior of returning both active and pending memberships. The schema describes the 'state' parameter but the description does not add context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant information. However, it could be improved by adding a brief usage note without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the response contains, how pagination works, or the meaning of the 'state' filter. More context is needed for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 3 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list), resource (organization memberships), and scope (for the authenticated user). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'github_orgs_list_members' which list members of an organization, but not memberships for the user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this lists memberships for the authenticated user as opposed to listing members or other related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the basic purpose without disclosing behavioral details such as whether inherited assignments are included, authentication needs, or pagination behavior beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks details about return format, pagination specifics, error handling, or scope of results (e.g., direct vs. inherited assignments).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; for example, it does not explain how to obtain the role_id or what per_page/page entail contextually.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List) and the resource (users assigned to an organization role). It does not differentiate from siblings like github_orgs_list_org_role_teams, but specifying 'users' provides sufficient distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_orgs_list_org_role_teams). The word 'users' implicitly suggests it's for users, but no exclusions or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication needs, or rate limits. It only states the action, missing essential transparency for a tool dealing with organization security resources.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence, but it could benefit from more context without being verbose. It is concise but slightly under-specified for a complex tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the purpose of filters, pagination, or the nature of returned data, making it hard for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage, so the parameters are well-documented. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'List' and the resource 'fine-grained personal access tokens with access to organization resources'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_orgs_list_pat_grant_repositories or github_orgs_list_pat_grant_requests, which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools list_pat_grant_requests and list_pat_grant_repositories serve different purposes, but the description lacks any mention of context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It only states the operation without disclosing behavioral aspects such as required permissions, pagination behavior beyond schema, or what happens when no invitations exist. Minimal disclosure for a read-only operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded in a single clear phrase. No unnecessary text, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description fails to explain what the response contains (e.g., invitation objects with fields like role, expiration). The tool has multiple filtering and pagination parameters, but the description does not hint at their purpose or usage context. Incomplete for the complexity of the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters (org, per_page, page, role, invitation_source). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List pending organization invitations' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (pending org invitations). However, it does not distinguish from similar sibling tools like github_orgs_list_failed_invitations or github_teams_list_pending_invitations_in_org, leaving potential ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., team-specific pending invitations). There are no stated exclusions or context cues to help an agent select correctly among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description provides no behavioral context (e.g., pagination, authentication, rate limits). It adds no value beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is clear and efficient. However, it could include more context without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given it is a list tool with pagination parameters, the description lacks details about pagination, result format, or scope. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since the input schema has 100% description coverage, the baseline score is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'List' and the resource 'organization webhooks'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'github_orgs_get_webhook' which retrieves a single webhook.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention pagination or related tools, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., sending a test event), required permissions, or rate limits. The agent has minimal understanding of the tool's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. It is efficient, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and simple parameters, the description leaves out important context such as what a ping does, what response to expect, and any prerequisites. The tool is minimally complete but lacks sufficient detail for an agent to use it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for both required parameters (org, hook_id) with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (ping) and the resource (organization webhook), distinguishing it from similar tools like github_repos_ping_webhook. However, it does not explain what 'ping' means (e.g., sending a test payload), which would add clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other webhook-related tools (e.g., get, update, delete). The description lacks context about prerequisites or alternative actions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description is minimal. It does not disclose whether the action is idempotent, if it triggers side effects (e.g., resending a request), or any rate limits. The agent lacks critical behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Redeliver', and contains no extraneous information. It is concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the outcome of redelivery, any prerequisites (e.g., permissions), or the nature of the operation (e.g., write vs. read). The agent needs more context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, but the description adds no additional meaning to the parameters. It does not explain what 'org', 'hook_id', or 'delivery_id' represent or any constraints. Baseline score is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Redeliver a delivery for an organization webhook' clearly states the action (redeliver) and resource (delivery for an organization webhook). It is specific and easily understood. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like github_apps_redeliver_webhook_delivery, which is a minor gap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as requiring the original delivery to have failed, or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a destructive action ('remove') but provides no details on side effects, required permissions, or reversibility. Without annotations, the description carries full burden and is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the many sibling tools with similar names (e.g., remove_membership, remove_outside_collaborator), the description lacks necessary context to disambiguate. It does not explain what 'remove an organization member' entails or how it differs from other removal operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, parameter descriptions are trivial ('org', 'username') and the tool description adds no further meaning. The description does not compensate for weak parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Remove an organization member', which is a clear verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_orgs_remove_membership_for_user' or 'github_orgs_remove_outside_collaborator', which have overlapping purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, permissions, or context in which removal is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the user is also removed from teams), required permissions, or whether the action is reversible. For a destructive operation, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence. However, it could be restructured to include brief context on usage or behavior without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low tool complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks essential context like prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions), side effects, and return value, which would be expected for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, but both parameter descriptions are minimal ('org', 'username'). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 since schema already defines them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the verb 'Remove' and the resource 'organization membership for a user'. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'github_orgs_remove_member' which removes the member entirely. However, it does not elaborate on the scope (e.g., whether it removes from all teams).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_orgs_remove_member' or 'github_teams_remove_membership_for_user_in_org'. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as required permissions or state of the user.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a destructive removal action but lacks details on side effects (e.g., revoking repository access, whether it's reversible) and required permissions. Since no annotations are present, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency, which it fails to provide beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, no unnecessary words, and directly communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema and two required parameters, the description is too minimal. It omits critical context like authentication needs, whether the removal is from all repositories, and potential side effects. For a simple removal, more context on prerequisites and impact is necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions 'org' and 'username', which are merely the parameter names. The tool description adds no further parameter details. Per the rule, with high schema coverage, baseline is 3, even though the schema descriptions are minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Remove outside collaborator from an organization'. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish from related sibling tools like 'github_orgs_convert_member_to_outside_collaborator' or 'github_orgs_remove_member', missing a chance to clarify the target role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., removing a member, converting a member). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing admin permissions or that the user must be an outside collaborator. The description is purely declarative without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'update' without disclosing effects (e.g., does it modify existing issues?), safety, or error conditions. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with one sentence, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified and could benefit from additional context without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about what the update entails, return values, and error handling. It fails to fully inform an agent about the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but parameter descriptions are just parameter names. The description adds no extra meaning to parameters, especially the 'body' object, which lacks details on its expected properties (e.g., name, color, restrictions).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (update) and resource (issue type for an organization). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_issue_type or update_issue_field, leaving ambiguity about its specific purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., create, delete, list). There is no mention of prerequisites, permissions, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'update' without disclosing what changes are possible, whether permissions are required, if the operation is reversible, or what the expected response is. The body parameter is a free-form object, but no constraints or examples are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of 12 words that directly states the purpose. Every word earns its place; no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks details on permission requirements, body format, error handling, and the distinction from the similar sibling tool. An agent would need additional info to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema: 'org' and 'pat_id' are self-explanatory, but 'body' is only described as 'Request body (JSON object)' in the schema, and the description does not elaborate on allowed fields or structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'access a fine-grained personal access token has to organization resources'. It distinguishes the single token scope from the sibling 'github_orgs_update_pat_accesses' (plural) via singular/plural naming, but does not explicitly differentiate or mention the alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_orgs_update_pat_accesses' for bulk updates. There is no context about required permissions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description only states 'Update', implying a write operation, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or any other behavioral traits. As a mutation tool, more disclosure is expected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, concise and front-loaded. No wasted words, but lacks structural elements like bullet points or examples that could improve clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite complexity (many sibling webhook tools), description does not explain what a webhook configuration is, how it differs from other webhook operations, or provide hints about the expected structure of the 'body' parameter. Incomplete for confident agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage (org, hook_id, body all have basic descriptions). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Update a webhook configuration for an organization', using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_webhook' (which updates the webhook itself) by specifying 'configuration'. However, it does not elaborate on what aspects of configuration can be updated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_webhook' or 'create_webhook'. The agent has no context to decide which tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic destructive action, omitting details on success/error responses, reversibility (restore tools exist among siblings), or authentication requirements. This is insufficient for safe usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it is overly minimal. While appropriately sized, it could include more detail without becoming verbose, earning a middling score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple delete operation, the description lacks completeness. It fails to mention return values, permissions, or the existence of restore operations, which are relevant for the agent to use the tool correctly without supplementary knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides only tautological descriptions ('username', 'package_type', 'package_name'), and the tool description adds no further meaning. It does not explain valid values for 'package_type' or format for 'package_name', leaving the agent without clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a package for a user' clearly states the action (delete), resource (package), and scope (for a user). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_package_for_org' or 'delete_package_for_authenticated_user'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to delete for an org vs a user. It does not mention prerequisites like permissions or package existence, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention pagination, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The schema hints at pagination but the description does not.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action. It is appropriately brief but could include more context without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and 5 parameters. The description does not explain return values, pagination behavior, or any nuances. It falls short for a tool with such complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'list' and the resource 'package versions for a package owned by the authenticated user'. It is clear and specific, but it does not distinguish from sibling tools like the org or user counterparts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like those for other scopes. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'list' without mentioning pagination, state filtering, or any side effects. The input schema has pagination and state parameters, but the description omits them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with 10 words, highly concise. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite simple purpose, the tool has 6 parameters including pagination and state. The description does not mention how results are returned, pagination behavior, or any filtering capabilities. Incomplete for a list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already says.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (package versions for a package owned by an organization). It distinguishes from sibling tools like those for authenticated user or user, but does not explicitly mention alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The agent is not told about conditions like requiring org membership or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'list', implying a read operation, but does not mention authentication requirements, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. The transparency is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, achieving good conciseness for its simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but omits details about response format, pagination, or special behaviors. It is adequate for a simple list operation but incomplete for richer context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter simply repeating its name in the description (e.g., 'username'). The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but not elevating understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List package versions for a package owned by a user' clearly states the action (list) and scope (user-owned package). It is specific enough to distinguish from similar tools like those for organization or authenticated user, though it does not explicitly call out sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_all_package_versions_for_package_owned_by_org' or 'get_all_package_versions_for_package_owned_by_authenticated_user'. The description lacks contextual directives for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but no annotations are provided. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, error handling, or response format. The burden of transparency is unmet.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the GitHub Packages API and the presence of many sibling tools, the description lacks essential context. It does not explain the return value, which is crucial since there is no output schema. It also fails to specify that this tool retrieves a specific version by ID for the authenticated user, limiting its completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, but each parameter description is merely its name (e.g., 'package_type'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, achieving the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a package version for the authenticated user', indicating a read operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_package_version_for_org' or 'get_package_version_for_user', which have similar purposes but different scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other package version retrieval tools. There is no mention of context like authenticated user requirement or exclusion of organization scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or side effects. For a read operation, it offers no safety guarantees or constraints beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the core function. However, it lacks structure (e.g., no separate sections or examples), but the brevity is appropriate for a simple get operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., package version details). It also does not mention error cases, pagination, or the scope of data returned. For 4 required parameters, the description is too sparse to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 100% (each parameter has a description), but those descriptions are merely the parameter names (e.g., 'username', 'package_type'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a package version for a user' clearly specifies the action (Get) and resource (package version for a user). It distinguishes from sibling tools like those for authenticated user or organization by including 'for a user', implying a specific user context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_package_version_for_authenticated_user, get_package_version_for_organization). It only implies the use case through the name, but lacks context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits (e.g., effect on package versions, required permissions, idempotency), but it only states the basic action without any additional context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, front-loading the key information. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about the restoration process, expected outcomes, and prerequisites. The current description is too minimal for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter names and types, which are minimal but present.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Restore'), the resource ('a package'), and the scope ('for a user'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like restore for authenticated user or org.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., restore_for_org, restore_for_authenticated_user) or on prerequisites like package ownership or deletion status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Restore package version' without explaining side effects, permissions required, or whether the action is reversible. Critical details are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and to the point. However, it is too sparse and could include more useful information without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a restore operation and the absence of an output schema, the description should explain the restoration process, limitations (e.g., only deleted versions?), and expected outcome. It only covers the minimal purpose and scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the schema descriptions are just parameter names (org, package_type, etc.). The description does not add any additional meaning to these parameters, leaving their semantics entirely dependent on the generic schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Restore') and resource ('package version') and scope ('for an organization'). It is specific about what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like restore_package_for_org or restore_package_version_for_user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., restore_package_for_org or delete_package_version_for_org). It lacks context on prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not mention pagination, ordering, response format, or whether it is read-only. The schema implies pagination via per_page and page parameters, but the description does not reference this.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, using a single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. It could benefit from a bit more detail, but it is efficient and not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with pagination parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks critical details. It does not mention pagination behavior, response structure, or any edge cases. Agents need more context to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'private registries for an organization'. However, it does not differentiate from other list tools in the same server, such as list org secrets or list org members, though it is distinct among the private_registries group.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_org_private_registry or other list tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., partial vs full update), required permissions, or whether the operation is idempotent. This leaves the agent with significant unknowns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an update operation with a free-form body and no output schema, the description lacks critical information about return values, required permissions, and the scope of modifications. It is incomplete for safe agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters 'org' and 'secret_name' are self-explanatory from their names. The 'body' parameter is a free-form JSON object, but the description adds no constraints or example usage, so it meets baseline expectations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'private registry for an organization', distinguishing it from siblings like create, delete, get, and list. However, it does not specify what aspects of the registry can be updated, limiting its helpfulness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use update versus create, or any prerequisites like existing registry. The description offers no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action, omitting details such as whether this is destructive, idempotent, requires specific permissions, or what the response format is. The agent is left without critical context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too minimal for a non-trivial tool with three parameters and many sibling tools. It does not explain what a draft item is, what the 'body' should contain, or any dependencies. An agent would need to infer or guess important context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline but not compensating for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('create draft item') and the target resource ('user owned project'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like github_projects_create_draft_item_for_org, but lacks explicit mention that it operates for the authenticated user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_projects_create_draft_item_for_org or other project item tools. There is no mention of preconditions, when not to use, or how it differs from similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'Delete', implying destruction, but no details on side effects, reversibility, or required permissions. Falls short of informing the agent about consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with one 6-word sentence. No redundant information, but lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) that could improve readability while maintaining brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without annotations or output schema, the description should cover context like return values, error cases, and concrete usage. It fails to do so, leaving the agent underinformed for a potentially destructive operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but parameter descriptions are merely the parameter names. The tool description adds no additional meaning about format, constraints, or relationships between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema provides structure but no semantic enrichment.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'delete' and resource 'project item', and the name includes 'for_user' to distinguish from org-level tools. However, it lacks explanation of what a 'project item' is and does not differentiate from sibling tools beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_item_for_org or add_item_for_user. Missing prerequisites (e.g., item existence, permissions) and scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 gives no information about permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The behavioral traits are entirely undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it very concise and front-loaded. However, it is arguably too brief and could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, but it does not. The tool has low complexity (2 parameters), but the description remains incomplete, missing return value details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for its two parameters, though the descriptions are minimal ('org', 'project_number'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'project for organization', making the action clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_projects_get_for_user' or 'github_projects_get_org_item', which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context for usage scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, idempotency, or potential side effects. Merely states the operation without elaboration.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence that front-loads the purpose. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, error cases, or provide context for the fields parameter. For a tool with multiple siblings, more detail is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'org', 'project_number'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (Get) and resource (item for an organization owned project). It distinguishes from user-owned projects by specifying 'organization owned', but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like github_projects_get_user_item.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_projects_get_user_item for user projects). No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It fails to mention that the tool is read-only, the structure of the returned fields, or any pagination behavior (though pagination parameters are in the schema). The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at four words, which is efficient for communication. However, it lacks structure such as bullet points or separate sections that could help quickly parse key points. It is minimal but not wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about what 'project fields' are, the expected output format, and any constraints (e.g., page limits). The current description is too sparse to fully equip an agent to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the schema already provides clear meaning for each parameter. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what is in the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'project fields for user', making the action unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'github_projects_list_fields_for_org', which lists fields for an organization instead of a user. The name itself provides differentiation, but the description could explicitly clarify the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_projects_get_field_for_user' or 'github_projects_list_fields_for_org'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'List projects for organization' without indicating read-only nature, potential side effects, or authorization needs. For a list operation, it is likely read-only, but this is not confirmed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise at only four words, with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action, but the extreme brevity may omit necessary context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain what constitutes a 'project' (classic vs V2), nor does it mention pagination or filtering capabilities implied by the parameters. The schema partly compensates, but the description should provide a high-level summary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it simply restates the tool's purpose. The schema descriptions are adequate, but the tool description could enhance understanding of how parameters interact.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List projects for organization' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (projects) and distinguishes from sibling tools like github_projects_list_for_user by specifying the organizational scope. However, it could be more precise about what type of projects (e.g., GitHub Projects V2).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_projects_list_for_user or github_projects_list_fields_for_org. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'List items' with no mention of pagination, field selection, or any side effects. The agent gets no insight into what the tool does beyond a simple list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it could include more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, yet the description does not describe return values or pagination behavior. For a tool with 7 parameters, the description lacks sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List items for an organization owned project' clearly states the verb (list), resource (items), and scope (organization-owned project). However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like github_projects_list_items_for_user, which lists items for user-owned projects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites or context for use are provided, making it hard for an agent to decide between similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it lists items, implying a read operation, but does not mention pagination, filtering, or any side effects. The schema includes pagination parameters, but the description fails to note that the tool returns paginated results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be expanded slightly to improve completeness without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks context about what items are returned, how pagination works, or how to use filtering parameters (q, fields). The schema covers parameters, but the description should provide a holistic view of the tool's functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (List) and resource (items for a user owned project), distinguishing it from similar tools like org-level project listings. However, it could more explicitly mention the required parameters (username, project_number) to reinforce the tool's scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listing items for an org project or listing projects themselves. The description does not mention context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'List items', implying a read operation, but fails to disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or what types of items are returned. Critical details are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though it could include more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a 'view' is, how pagination works, or what response format to expect. The tool's purpose is clear, but operational context is lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-described in the schema. However, the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the purpose of specific fields like 'fields' or pagination cursors.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'items for an organization project view'. It is specific but does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_projects_list_view_items_for_user or github_projects_list_items_for_org.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage context is provided. There is no indication when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_projects_list_items_for_org or github_projects_list_view_items_for_user. The description offers no guidance on selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, placing full burden on the description. The description only says 'List items', implying a read operation, but does not disclose pagination behavior, data format, or authorization requirements. Essential behavioral context is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, efficiently conveying the core purpose. However, it is too minimal and could benefit from slightly more detail without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what items are returned, how pagination works, or any usage context. The agent lacks information to effectively use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, and the parameter descriptions in the schema are already clear. No extra semantic value is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List items for a user project view', which clearly indicates the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_projects_list_view_items_for_org or github_projects_list_items_for_user, which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose that deletion is irreversible, requires authentication, or what happens if the comment doesn't exist. Fails to provide necessary behavioral context for a delete operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action and resource, no redundant words. However, could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks explanation of how to obtain comment_id, irreversible nature, or permissions needed. For a simple tool with no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully guide the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema parameter descriptions are minimal (just parameter names). Tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, despite 100% coverage, because the field meanings are trivial (owner, repo, comment_id).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (Delete) and the resource (review comment for a pull request), distinguishing it from siblings like create, update, or get review comments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., permissions, comment existence), and no scenarios when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Get a pull request', implying a read-only operation. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the pull request does not exist. The description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency and fails to provide meaningful details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence, four words). It is appropriately sized for a simple get operation, but it could be structured better by including additional context. No filler or irrelevant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the returned data contains, any prerequisites (e.g., authentication, repository access), or how to handle errors. For a simple retrieval tool, more context would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, but the parameter descriptions are just the parameter names ('owner', 'repo', 'pull_number'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, even with no extra info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a pull request'). It is a verb+resource pair that indicates what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_pulls_list, github_pulls_get_review, etc., which also deal with pull requests, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many pull-related sibling tools (e.g., github_pulls_list, github_pulls_get_review), but no mention of when to choose this one. No exclusions or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get a review comment' without mentioning whether it is read-only, what happens if the comment_id is invalid, or any permissions needed. The minimal description fails to provide adequate transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary structure and detail. It could be expanded with information about parameters or response behavior without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no output schema, the description should explain the return value or error cases. It does not mention that it returns a single review comment object, nor does it reference related endpoints. The context signals (3 required params, no enums) are not addressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema descriptions ('owner', 'repo', 'comment_id') are merely the parameter names, offering no real meaning. The tool description does not elaborate on what comment_id represents or how to obtain it. Schema coverage is 100% but with empty descriptions, so the tool description does not compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a review comment for a pull request' is specific, uses a clear verb-resource pair, and distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_review_comment, list_review_comments, and delete_review_comment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_review_comments or update_review_comment. The description does not include context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'List comments' implying read-only, but omits details like pagination behavior, required authentication, or whether the comments are returned in any particular order. The schema includes pagination parameters, but the description does not add context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, efficiently stating the purpose. However, it omits critical details for a complete understanding, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the return value, pagination handling, and prerequisites. It does not, leaving the agent with insufficient information for proper invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameter descriptions already exist. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List comments for a pull request review' uses a clear verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'github_pulls_list_review_comments' by specifying 'for review', but does not explicitly call out the distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listing review comments for a repo or listing all comments on a pull request.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention how commits are ordered, whether merge commits are included, or any other behavioral trait beyond the basic listing. Pagination is implied by schema but not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. Could slightly improve by adding brief context about the result but remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description, combined with the input schema, provides adequate context for a simple list tool. However, without output schema, it does not describe the response format. The scope ('on a pull request') is clear, but additional context about typical use cases or limitations is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters ('owner', 'repo', 'pull_number', 'per_page', 'page'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and the resource (commits on a pull request), distinguishing it from 'github_repos_list_commits' which lists commits for a repo. However, it does not specify the returned data structure (e.g., commit SHA, message, author).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'github_pulls_list_files' or 'github_repos_list_commits'. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., PR existence) or pagination behavior despite schema including 'per_page' and 'page'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Get all requested reviewers' without mentioning read-only nature, authentication requirements, or potential response structure (e.g., includes users and teams). This is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence of 7 words. No redundancy, front-loaded key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation, the description is minimally adequate. However, given the absence of an output schema and annotations, more detail (e.g., pagination, return format) would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are minimal (just parameter names). The tool description adds no additional semantics or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline for high coverage is 3, but the lack of extra context reduces value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'all requested reviewers for a pull request'. It differentiates implicitly from sibling tools like list_reviews (actual reviews) and request_reviewers (adding reviewers). However, it could explicitly state what it does not cover.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_pulls_list_reviews or github_pulls_get. The description lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Does not disclose behavioral traits: no mention of side effects, permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens upon submission (e.g., review becomes final, notifications sent).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and no explanation of return values or effects. With 5 parameters including a nested object, the description is too minimal to guide correct usage. Does not cover how to use the 'body' parameter or what success entails.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with basic descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The 'body' parameter is a JSON object, but the description does not clarify its structure. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states clear verb ('Submit') and resource ('review for a pull request'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'github_pulls_create_review' which might be confused with submission. The purpose is clear but lacks context about the difference between creating and submitting a review.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'github_pulls_create_review' or 'github_pulls_dismiss_review'. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., review must be in 'pending' state) or typical workflow context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects (e.g., whether updating triggers CI checks), rate limits, or idempotency. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient; the description should at least hint at what changes are possible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no extraneous content. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with a nested body parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks information about the kind of updates possible (e.g., title, body, state, labels), the response format, and potential errors. A more complete description would help the agent use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, but each parameter description is minimal (just the parameter name). The 'body' parameter is described as 'Request body (JSON object)' without detailing what fields it accepts. The description adds little meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a pull request' clearly states the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'github_pulls_update_branch' or 'github_pulls_update_review', which also perform updates on pull requests. A more specific description (e.g., 'Update title, body, state, or other pull request fields') would improve clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'github_pulls_create', 'github_pulls_merge', or 'github_pulls_update_review'. There is no mention of prerequisites, restrictions, or common use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action without detailing side effects, auth needs, rate limits, or failure conditions (e.g., up-to-date branch, conflicts). The agent is left unaware of potential risks.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, which is efficient. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it less useful. It earns points for brevity but loses for lacking substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of updating a pull request branch (a write operation with potential conflicts), the description is insufficient. No output schema is provided, and there is no explanation of success/failure outcomes. The tool leaves the agent with minimal guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but property descriptions are trivial (e.g., 'owner', 'repo'). The description does not add information beyond the schema, such as expected structure for the 'body' parameter (e.g., 'expected_head_sha'). Baseline 3 applies due to high coverage, but no added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a pull request branch' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like `github_pulls_update` or `github_pulls_merge`, which could cause confusion for an agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. There is no mention of alternatives or context about the branch being behind the base branch or conflict scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it sacrifices some detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a nested parameter (body), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what properties the 'body' object should contain, leaving ambiguity for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; for example, it does not explain the format or expected properties of the 'body' parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (update) and resource (review comment for a pull request). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, get, delete, reply.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites or context like required permissions or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'List reactions' without mentioning that it is a read operation, supports pagination (per_page and page parameters), or requires authentication. The description adds minimal context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no extraneous words. It is concise, though it could benefit from brief additional context without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity and absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too brief. It omits expected return format, default behavior (e.g., pagination defaults), and any permission or side-effect details. A more complete description would improve agent comprehension.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, achieving the baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List reactions for a commit comment' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (reactions for a commit comment), distinguishing it from create and delete siblings. However, it could explicitly mention that it lists all reactions by default with optional content filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_for_commit_comment or delete_for_commit_comment. The description does not specify use cases or prerequisites such as required permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the fact that it returns a list of reaction objects. The schema includes pagination parameters, but the description fails to mention them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, stating the essential action and resource. However, it could be more informative without being overly verbose, so it is appropriate but not outstanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about what reactions are, how pagination works, and potential use cases. Currently, it is too minimal to be considered complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain context or usage of parameters like 'content' (enum) or pagination params.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('reactions for a release'), making the core purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_reactions_list_for_issue, which have similar purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_reactions_list_for_issue or github_reactions_create_for_release. The description lacks context about the appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as mutation effects, required permissions, rate limits, or failure conditions. It provides only the basic action without behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and the nested 'body' parameter, the description should clarify the outcome (e.g., success/failure) and what can be included in the body (e.g., permissions). It does not, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters with basic descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, warranting a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add a repository collaborator' clearly states the action (add) and the resource (repository collaborator). It is specific and easily distinguishable from sibling tools like 'remove_collaborator' or 'list_collaborators'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as team-based invitations, or on prerequisites like admin permissions. The description lacks any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Check if a user is a repository collaborator,' implying a read operation with no side effects, but does not describe return value, error handling, or authorization requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Efficient but lacks front-loading of key behavioral info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool is simple but lacks output schema. Description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean or error). For a check tool, return value is critical. Incomplete for agent to know how to interpret result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter described as 'owner', 'repo', 'username'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond these trivial labels. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks if a user is a repository collaborator, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like add_collaborator, remove_collaborator, list_collaborators, and get_collaborator_permission_level. However, it lacks mention of the return type (e.g., boolean) or scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_collaborators or get_collaborator_permission_level). No context on prerequisites or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('list') but does not specify the output format, pagination, or the case when no errors exist. Minimal additional context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two words), which is efficient but borderline under-specified. It is not verbose, but it lacks substance that could improve clarity without adding length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose. However, it misses details like the scope (repository-level) and what constitutes an error, which could be added for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning or relationship between parameters and CODEOWNERS errors, earning the baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List CODEOWNERS errors' clearly specifies the action (list) and the resource (CODEOWNERS errors). It distinguishes this tool from siblings as no other tool in the server mentions CODEOWNERS errors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Given the large number of sibling tools, this lack of direction hurts usability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description only states 'Create an autolink reference' without disclosing any behavioral details such as idempotency, what happens if the autolink already exists, required permissions, or side effects. The agent lacks information to safely invoke this tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence (8 words) that is easy to parse. It is appropriately front-loaded but may be too terse, lacking important details. However, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of a nested 'body' parameter and no output schema, the description should explain what an autolink is, the expected structure of the body, and what the tool returns. The current description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full context of usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all parameters with 100% coverage, but the descriptions are minimal ('owner', 'repo', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. For a nested 'body' parameter, more context on expected fields would be beneficial. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('autolink reference for a repository'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this tool from other 'create' tools like github_repos_create_deploy_key or github_repos_create_webhook, relying on the tool name for differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, nor any exclusions. The description does not help an agent decide whether this tool is appropriate for a given task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the creation action without describing side effects, permissions required, rate limits, or what happens upon success. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that directly states the purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity. It earns its place by being clear, but could include more detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. The agent needs to know what a repository dispatch event is, valid body contents, and expected outcomes. The current description leaves too many gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all three parameters with minimal descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, though the description could have clarified the purpose of the 'body' object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a repository dispatch event' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (repository dispatch event). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools, as no other sibling mentions 'dispatch_event'. However, it lacks additional context to differentiate from similar creation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or why one might choose this tool over sibling tools like github_repos_create_deployment or github_repos_create_webhook.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits but fails to do so. It does not mention idempotency, update semantics (partial vs. full replacement), required permissions, or what happens if the environment already exists or not. The short description leaves critical behavior unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured for a simple purpose, though it sacrifices informativeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, one being a free-form JSON body) and the absence of an output schema, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain the expected format of the 'body' parameter, whether it's a full replacement or partial update, or any return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, but each description merely repeats the parameter name (e.g., 'owner' described as 'owner'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the minimal but complete schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('create or update') and the resource ('environment'), making the tool's purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_actions_create_environment_variable or github_repos_delete_an_environment that also deal with environments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to create a new environment vs. update an existing one, or how it differs from related environment tools. The description lacks any contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the obvious destructive nature. It omits information about permissions required, irreversibility, or effects on associated resources like secrets.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core action. It contains no unnecessary words, but it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (three required string params, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention prerequisites, side effects, or error conditions, which would help an agent use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage for three simple string parameters (owner, repo, environment_name). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the action; the parameter names are self-explanatory, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete an environment' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (environment), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_or_update_environment' or 'get_environment'. However, it does not elaborate on what 'environment' means in the GitHub context, leaving slight ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., deleting environment secrets, or updating environment). It lacks any context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. While 'Delete' implies a destructive, irreversible action, the description does not explicitly state that the operation is permanent or highlight any required authorization, leaving the agent to infer these critical details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence, front-loading the core action. Every word serves a purpose, though it could afford a bit more detail without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the operation, the description covers the basic action but lacks completeness. It omits important context such as the requirement for admin/push permissions, the fact that the key must exist, and potential error scenarios. With no output schema, the agent also gets no information about return values or success/failure indications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema's parameter descriptions are minimal (just 'owner', 'repo', 'key_id'), and the tool description adds no additional meaning. The agent cannot discern from the description alone that 'key_id' refers to the deploy key's numeric ID, which is essential for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'deploy key', making the tool's function unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_deploy_key', 'get_deploy_key', and 'list_deploy_keys' by specifying the delete action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions) or context for appropriate usage. This lack of contextual advice reduces its utility for an AI agent deciding between related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that deletion is irreversible, the need for specific permissions (e.g., admin or write access to the repository), potential impact on deployments, or required preconditions (e.g., policy existence). This lack of transparency could lead to misuse or unexpected failures.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could be slightly more informative without adding verbosity, such as including the context of deletion or required identifiers. Still, it is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (4 required parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not describe what happens on success (e.g., confirmation or void response), failure modes (e.g., policy not found), or side effects (e.g., removal of associated protection rules). An agent needs more context to handle errors and confirm successful execution.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter, but those descriptions are merely the parameter names (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'environment_name', 'branch_policy_id'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Delete a deployment branch policy', clearly indicating a verb ('Delete') and a resource ('deployment branch policy'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, update, or list, which have different verbs. However, it lacks additional context such as the scope (e.g., repository-level) or any qualifying details that would further clarify the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that the policy must exist), nor does it differentiate use cases from related tools like 'update' or 'get'. The agent must infer usage solely from the verb and resource, which is insufficient for effective selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the deletion is permanent, if a commit is auto-created, or required permissions. This is a minimal description for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single sentence, concise and to the point. No wasted words, but could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete file tool with no output schema or annotations, the description omits important context like whether a commit is created, the effect on the repository, or any error conditions. Lacks sufficient detail for an agent to fully understand the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions ('owner', 'repo', 'path'), but these are trivial. The description adds no additional meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Delete a file' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'github_repos_delete' (whole repo) and file creation tools. However, it does not mention the context of a repository.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'github_repos_create_or_update_file_contents' for updates. No prerequisites or conditions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks any behavioral context beyond the action. No mention of consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), required permissions, or side effects. Without annotations, the description fails to disclose important behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what a ruleset is, that deletion is irreversible, or provide any context about the 'org' parameter. The description is incomplete for a deletion operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters described), but the descriptions are tautological ('org', 'ruleset_id'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Delete' and the resource 'organization repository ruleset'. It is specific enough to identify the tool's function, though it does not differentiate it from similar sibling tools like 'github_repos_update_org_ruleset' or 'github_repos_get_org_ruleset'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or reference to related tools for different actions (e.g., create, update).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose important behavioral traits for a delete operation, such as irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects. Since no annotations are present, the description should compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single clear sentence. It is not verbose, but could be slightly more informative without being wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (delete with three required params), the description is minimally adequate but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency. It fails to inform about destructive nature or prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes all three parameters (owner, repo, hook_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it deletes a repository webhook, matching the tool name. It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not differentiate from other webhook-related tools but the action is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating, updating, or listing webhooks. The description provides no context for appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It lacks details on side effects, reversibility, permissions needed, or consequences of disabling protection rules.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundancy. It is concise, though extremely brief. It could include more information without significant length increase.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the four required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what happens after disabling, success/failure signals, or how the parameters relate to GitHub environments.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are tautological (each parameter description repeats its name). The tool description adds no additional meaning or guidance for parameters like how to obtain protection_rule_id or valid formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Disable') and the resource ('custom protection rule for an environment'). It matches the tool name and distinguishes from sibling tools like create, get, and list operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to disable versus create or get a deployment protection rule. Prerequisites or context are missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or what 'combined status' means. The agent is left to infer from the name and schema alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence) with no repetition. It could benefit from slight expansion on behavior without becoming verbose, but it is appropriately short.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the returned status object contains, any required permissions, or how pagination works. More context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'ref' is just called a secondary reference). Baseline score applies since schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('get combined status') and the target ('specific reference'). However, it does not distinguish this from similar tools like github_repos_list_commit_statuses_for_ref.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description provides no context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to avoid it. The sibling list contains similar tools but no differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. The description only states it 'gets' metrics, implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or the nature of the metrics. It fails to provide sufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, consisting of a single phrase. It is front-loaded and efficient, but it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose. While it is not wasteful, it is slightly underspecified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the minimal description, no output schema, and no annotations, the tool is contextually incomplete. An agent would lack understanding of what the community profile metrics include, expected return values, and how to handle the response. The description covers only the basic purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 100%, but the parameter descriptions are minimal ('owner', 'repo') and add no value beyond the names. The tool description does not clarify parameter semantics or expected formats. The baseline score is 3 because the schema covers the parameters, but no additional meaning is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get community profile metrics' clearly indicates the action (get) and the resource (community profile metrics). The tool name also reinforces this. However, it does not specify what these metrics include, leaving some ambiguity about the exact data returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context. The agent receives no help in deciding to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond being a read operation. It does not mention idempotency, response structure, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, appropriately concise. It is not verbose but could be slightly more informative without adding length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema or annotations. Description does not explain what information is returned or how to use the result. Incomplete for an effective tool usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action 'Get' and resource 'custom deployment protection rule'. However, it does not explicitly indicate that it retrieves a specific rule by ID, which could cause confusion with listing tools like github_repos_get_all_deployment_protection_rules.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_repos_get_all_deployment_protection_rules or github_repos_create_deployment_protection_rule. Agent must infer usage from name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety, required permissions, or behavior on missing environments. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise and well-structured. However, it is under-informative, earning a slight deduction from a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (get by 3 params, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what an environment is, what the return value contains, or how it differs from listing environments. The output schema is absent, so the description should provide more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with basic parameter descriptions (just the parameter names). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameters, but the descriptions are minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get an environment' uses a specific verb and identifies the resource, but it is minimal and does not specify that it refers to deployment environments in GitHub, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_all_environments' or 'create_or_update_environment'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include list and create/update environment functions, but the description does not clarify that this retrieves a single environment by name, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states listing, but does not indicate read-only nature, permission requirements, or pagination behavior (though page/per_page parameters exist in schema). Missing critical context for a mutation-less tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at one sentence. While it could include more useful info without being verbose, the brevity is not detrimental. It is front-loaded and skimmable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what rule suites are, what the response contains, or how to effectively use filters. Incomplete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema covers all 8 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List organization rule suites' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (organization rule suites). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'github_repos_get_org_rule_suite' (singular) by implying multiple suites, but does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'github_repos_get_org_rulesets'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_org_rule_suite' or 'get_org_rulesets'. No mention of required parameters (org is required) or that filtering is possible via optional parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states a 'Get' operation, implying a read-only action, but does not mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects. It fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence, 4 words). It is front-loaded and to the point, but it sacrifices informativeness. It could include more detail without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not. Also, no information is given about the build lifecycle or how build_id is obtained. The description is too minimal for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage but each parameter description is just the parameter name (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'build_id'), which adds no value. The tool description does not explain these parameters further. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, and the schema descriptions themselves are trivial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get GitHub Pages build' is clear and specific. It uses a verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('GitHub Pages build'). The parameters (owner, repo, build_id) further specify that it retrieves a single build. Among siblings, this is distinct from list_pages_builds (list all) and get_latest_pages_build (latest), so it effectively distinguishes the tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_pages_builds or request_pages_build. It does not specify the context or prerequisites. The agent would have to infer usage from the tool name and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or error states (e.g., branch not protected). The tool appears safe (read-only) but no context is added.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but too sparse given the tool's complexity. It does not fully exploit the available space to add valuable context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and meaningful parameter descriptions, the description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to confidently use the tool. Missing details on return format, prerequisites, and behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema descriptions are trivial (parameter names only). The tool description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so parameter understanding is not enhanced.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('users with access to the protected branch'), differentiating it from sibling tools like get_apps_with_access_to_protected_branch and get_teams_with_access_to_protected_branch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as whether the user needs to check if the branch is protected first or scenarios where apps/teams access is relevant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only states 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, or permissions required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence, front-loaded with essential information. However, it could be expanded slightly to include context without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite being a simple getter, the description lacks information about return values, required parameters, or any hints about the response. With no output schema and no annotations, it is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with basic descriptions for owner, repo, and hook_id. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a repository webhook' clearly states the action (get) and resource (repository webhook). It distinguishes from siblings like list_webhooks and get_webhook_config, but could explicitly mention it retrieves a specific webhook by ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention context like 'retrieve details of an existing webhook' or contrast with get_webhook_config.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description merely states 'Get all autolinks', implying a read operation, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior when no autolinks exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (6 words) and front-loaded. No wasted words, but it lacks any structural elements like lists or context. Still appropriate for a simple list tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with two parameters and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on pagination, response format, or what autolinks contain, which could be useful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with trivial descriptions ('owner', 'repo'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get all autolinks of a repository', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_autolink (single) and create_autolink, though it does not 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 does not disclose that this is a read operation (implied by 'list'), nor does it mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or that results are paginated (despite pagination parameters in the schema).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, but could be expanded to add more value without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool and the lack of output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or the type of data returned. The schema covers parameters well, but overall context is lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for 'per_page' and 'page' parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. For a high-coverage schema, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and the resource (commit statuses for a reference). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'github_repos_get_combined_status_for_ref', which also deals with commit statuses for a ref.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_repos_get_combined_status_for_ref' (which returns a combined status). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only says 'List deploy keys' with no disclosure of read-only behavior, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or what the response contains. This is insufficient for a safe agent decision.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though it could benefit from slightly more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain the resource type (deploy keys tied to a repo), the return format, or any constraints. For a tool with many siblings, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter (owner, repo, per_page, page). The description adds no additional meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameter semantics well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List deploy keys' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_repos_get_deploy_key' or other list tools, but the name and context partially compensate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scope (e.g., it lists deploy keys for a repo), or comparison with similar tools like 'github_repos_get_deploy_key'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry the behavioral burden. It only states 'list' which implies a read operation, but does not disclose what is returned (e.g., object of language names to bytes) or any potential side effects. The description is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at three words, with no wasted information. However, it may be overly terse; some additional context could be useful without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool, the description is minimal but sufficient to convey the action. However, without an output schema, the description does not explain the return format (e.g., mapping of language names to bytes). It barely meets minimum viability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage with basic descriptions ('owner', 'repo'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per rules, baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states what the tool does: list repository languages. It is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_repos_list_activities or github_repos_list_branches, which also list repository-related data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons to similar list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that the tool supports pagination (via 'per_page' and 'page' parameters) or that it is read-only. This is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, and the description does not mention what the response contains (e.g., webhook objects, pagination info). For a list tool, this leaves the agent guessing about the return format and pagination behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for its 4 parameters, so the description adds no extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the schema already does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List repository webhooks' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (repository webhooks). It distinguishes from org-level webhooks by specifying 'repository.' However, it could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., 'for a specific repository').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_orgs_list_webhooks' for org-level webhooks. The agent is left to infer based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, or rate limits. It only states the action without any behavioral context, leaving critical uncertainty about the operation's implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easily scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool having 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain the redelivery process, prerequisites, or expected behavior. It is too minimal to fully equip an agent for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), but those descriptions merely repeat parameter names (e.g., 'owner', 'repo'). The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3 as per rubric.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Redeliver a delivery for a repository webhook' clearly states the verb (redeliver) and resource (delivery for a repository webhook). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_apps_redeliver_webhook_delivery or github_orgs_redeliver_webhook_delivery, lacking scope distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other redelivery endpoints) or when not to use it. The absence of usage context limits an agent's ability to choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as permission requirements, reversibility, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded, but it omits essential details, making it too sparse for effective tool selection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 required params, no output schema), the description is inadequate. No annotations, usage guidance, or behavioral context is provided, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's minimal parameter descriptions. It does not explain parameter formats, constraints, or relationships.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and resource ('a repository collaborator'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like `github_repos_add_collaborator` and `github_repos_check_collaborator`.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update' which implies a write operation, but gives no details on side effects (e.g., overwrite vs. merge, validation behavior, permission requirements, or rate limits). This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence of 44 characters. It is efficient and front-loaded with the key verb and resource. However, it is extremely brief and could benefit from a bit more detail about what the configuration update entails, without becoming unnecessarily verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters (including a nested object) and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what a webhook configuration is, what can be updated, or what the response indicates. The agent would have limited understanding of the tool's full behavior from this description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema description coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are trivial (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'hook_id', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning or context for the parameters, such as what fields the 'body' object expects (e.g., url, content_type, secret). The high coverage does not compensate for the lack of semantic enrichment.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'a webhook configuration for a repository', establishing the core action. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like `github_repos_update_webhook`, which also updates webhooks but may target the webhook object itself rather than just the configuration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: when you need to update a webhook configuration. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like `update_webhook` or `get_webhook_config`, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The input schema implies pagination parameters, but the description adds no context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single phrase that accurately captures the tool's purpose. No extraneous words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (19 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on output format, pagination, filtering behavior, and how to use the rich parameter set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (secret scanning alerts for a repository). It is specific but does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_alert or list_locations_for_alert.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_alert for a single alert, or list_locations_for_alert for locations). The description merely states what it does.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether the tool returns all locations or requires additional parameters. The minimal description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence. It is front-loaded with the key information, though it could be slightly expanded without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and the description does not mention what the response contains (e.g., list of locations, file paths, line numbers). The tool is a list operation, and pagination is implied by parameters but not explicitly stated in the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter explained. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('locations for a secret scanning alert'). It is specific and easily understood, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_alert' which may also return location data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no information about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'github_secret_scanning_get_alert' or 'github_secret_scanning_list_alerts_for_repo'. No prerequisites or context for usage are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Request a CVE' without explaining side effects (e.g., idempotency, state changes), required permissions, or what happens after the request. Important details like advisory state requirements are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, achieving conciseness. However, it lacks structure (e.g., no separate sections or examples) and could benefit from a slightly longer, more organized format without sacrificing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a security advisory CVE request) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the advisory's required state (e.g., published), the CVE request process, or any post-request behavior. Sibling tools like create and update suggest a workflow, but this tool's role is insufficiently contextualized.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not elaborate on any parameters, and the schema descriptions are tautological ('owner', 'repo', 'ghsa_id'). While param names are self-explanatory, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining that ghsa_id is the Global Security Advisory ID.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Request' and the resource 'CVE for a repository security advisory'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like github_security_advisories_create_repository_advisory (which creates the advisory) and github_security_advisories_update_repository_advisory (which updates it), making its unique action evident.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as the advisory needing to exist, be published, or whether a CVE can only be requested once. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not state that this is a read operation, what permissions are required to use it, or what the response contains. The description is insufficient for transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, very concise. However, it lacks structure and important details, but conciseness alone earns a 4.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context. It does not explain what the tool returns, differentiate from siblings, or clarify the scope of the check. Incomplete for a 4-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, parameter descriptions are just the parameter names (e.g., 'org'), adding no real meaning. The tool description does not elaborate on parameters, so it does not add value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Check team permissions for a repository' clearly states the action and resource. However, it does not specify which team or repository, relying on parameters. It also fails to distinguish from the sibling 'github_teams_check_permissions_for_repo_legacy'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the legacy version or other team permission tools. No prerequisites or context for using this specific tool are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only says 'Check team permissions', which indicates a read operation, but does not disclose what permissions are checked, the response format, authentication requirements, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation-free operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it could be slightly more informative without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and minimal description, the tool definition lacks important context. It does not explain the return format, how permissions are represented, or any prerequisites. For a simple check tool, this is acceptable but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but descriptions are just param names (e.g., 'team_id'), providing no added meaning. The description does not elaborate on parameters. Baseline for high coverage is 3, but the param descriptions are useless, so this does not add value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Check') and the resource ('team permissions for a repository'), and the '(Legacy)' suffix distinguishes it from the non-legacy sibling tool. This is a specific verb+resource combination.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this legacy version versus the non-legacy 'in_org' variant. No context about preferred usage or conditions. The description implies legacy but doesn't help an agent decide which to invoke.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It only states what the tool does, not side effects, permissions, rate limits, or response format. An agent lacks crucial context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler. It is highly concise and front-loaded, earning full points.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description should provide more context about returned data or usage constraints. It is too minimal to fully prepare an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes parameters. The description adds no additional meaning. Baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a team by name' clearly states the action and the resource, making it easy to understand. It differentiates from list operations but does not explicitly distinguish from other retrieval methods like get_legacy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer this over list or get_legacy, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic function. It does not mention auth requirements, error handling, or what 'Legacy' implies (e.g., deprecation, different data format).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, front-loading the purpose. It is concise but could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description is minimal. It lacks context about what data is returned, authentication prerequisites, or how legacy behavior differs. This could lead to incorrect usage by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'team_id', but the parameter description merely repeats the name. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a team (Legacy)' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (a team), and the 'Legacy' suffix distinguishes it from modern team retrieval endpoints among siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similarly named tools like 'github_teams_get_by_name'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative team retrieval tools (e.g., github_teams_get_by_name). The description lacks any context about preferred usage scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states a read operation but lacks details on expected return values (e.g., membership state, role), authentication requirements, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description lacks information about the response format (e.g., what properties are returned) and does not explain the concept of team membership roles. With no output schema, the agent needs more context to interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage (each param has a description, though minimal). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get) and resource (team membership for a user), making the purpose specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_teams_get_membership_for_user_legacy or other team membership endpoints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name implies it checks membership in an org team, but there is no mention of context, exclusions, or when to choose it over other membership tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It only states 'Get team membership for a user (Legacy)' without disclosing deprecation status, authorization needs, or what happens if the user is not a member.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one phrase) and front-loaded with the key purpose. It could be improved with a more structured format, but it effectively communicates the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing critical context: no output schema or description of return values, no explanation of 'legacy' implications, and no mention of whether the endpoint is deprecated or what its limitations are.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but parameter descriptions are trivial (just the parameter names). The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 for high coverage, and no extra value is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'team membership for a user', and includes '(Legacy)' to distinguish it from the non-legacy version. However, it does not clarify what 'legacy' entails or how it differs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this legacy tool versus the non-legacy alternative (e.g., github_teams_get_membership_for_user_in_org). It also lacks context on prerequisites or specific scenarios for using this endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or any specific behavioral traits of the legacy endpoint (e.g., deprecation status, data differences).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no superfluous words. However, it lacks structure (e.g., no sections or bullet points) and could be improved with slightly more context without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a legacy list endpoint with no output schema, the description does not provide enough context: it does not mention that 'team_id' is required, what the response contains, or that pagination parameters are available. The schema covers parameters but the description omits overall purpose and usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for all three parameters, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'child teams', and adds '(Legacy)' to indicate this is a legacy endpoint. It distinguishes from the non-legacy sibling 'github_teams_list_child_in_org' by hinting at legacy status, though it could be more explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the non-legacy alternative 'github_teams_list_child_in_org'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for using a legacy endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens when the user has no teams. The pagination parameters are described in the schema, but the description adds no additional transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (4 words) and front-loaded with the verb. However, it could include a bit more context without becoming verbose, such as clarifying the scope or result type.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of many sibling team-related tools and no output schema, the description lacks crucial context about what exactly is listed. It suffices only for the simplest interpretation, but fails to provide a complete picture for an AI agent to select this tool confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters ('per_page', 'page') having detailed explanations about pagination. The description does not mention parameters, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'teams' with the scope 'for the authenticated user'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_teams_list' which may list teams for an organization, missing explicit scope clarification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'github_teams_list_child_in_org' or 'github_teams_list_members_in_org'. There is no context on what kind of teams are listed (e.g., user's memberships or owned teams).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, authentication requirements, or rate limits. It adds no detail beyond the bare action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though it could benefit from additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain return values or pagination behavior. It does not, leaving the agent with incomplete information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but does not detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List pending team invitations' clearly states the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'github_teams_list_pending_invitations_legacy', as it omits the organization context implied by the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool or how it differs from alternatives like the legacy version. No usage context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'List pending team invitations (Legacy)', offering no insight into behavior like read-only nature, pagination nuances, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at one line, front-loaded with action and resource. However, it could include more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It lacks details about return format, pagination, and legacy vs non-legacy distinctions beyond the label.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists pending team invitations and notes 'Legacy'. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'github_teams_list_pending_invitations_in_org'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only status, pagination behavior, required permissions, or any side effects. The schema includes pagination params, but the description omits any mention of these or return value structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two words. It front-loads the key action, but its brevity may leave the agent without useful context. Every word earns its place, but more details could improve usability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what is returned (e.g., list of repository objects with names, permissions). Also lacks information on authorization requirements or common use cases. Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters (org, team_slug, per_page, page). The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List team repositories' clearly states the action and resource. The tool name reinforces this. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_teams_list_repos_legacy, which performs a similar function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_teams_list_repos_legacy or other listing tools. The description lacks context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only says 'List', implying a read operation, but does not confirm read-only behavior, mention pagination details beyond the schema, or specify rate limits or other traits. The schema covers pagination but the description adds no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single phrase. It is front-loaded with the action, but its brevity leaves out potentially useful context. Still, every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's name includes 'Legacy', the description should ideally indicate its status and possibly recommend the modern alternative. It does not mention what the response contains (no output schema), nor does it provide any contextual information about when to use this endpoint. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for an agent seeking to understand the tool's role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter descriptions for team_id, per_page, and page. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'team repositories', with the suffix '(Legacy)' distinguishing it from the modern version. This provides a specific purpose, though it could be more explicit about what team repositories are.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Notably, there is a sibling tool 'github_teams_list_repos_in_org' which is likely the modern version, but the description does not mention this or give any context on choosing between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the email already exists. Fails to provide necessary transparency for a mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (9 words) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema and with a minimal description, the tool fails to explain the request body structure, required fields, or expected response, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema defines a 'body' object with no constraints, and the description does not clarify expected fields (e.g., 'email'). Schema coverage is 100% but lacks detail, and the description compensates insufficiently.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (Add), resource (email address), and scope (for authenticated user), distinguishing it from siblings like delete/list emails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listing or deleting emails. Missing context about prerequisites or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states 'Create', which implies mutation, but no details on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or response format. This is insufficient for a creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficient but borders on under-specification. However, it earns a 4 for being very concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a permissive input schema, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. The agent would not know what fields to include in the request body (e.g., key, title, key_type).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema coverage is 100% (the single 'body' parameter has a description), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, which is a free-form JSON object with no required fields specified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Create', the resource 'SSH signing key', and the scope 'for the authenticated user'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_gpg_key_for_authenticated_user and create_public_ssh_key_for_authenticated_user by specifying 'SSH signing key'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or context provided. The description does not mention required authentication or any conditions for key creation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Delete a GPG key' without mentioning that the action is destructive, irreversible, or requires the key to exist. The safety profile of the operation is not communicated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence without extraneous content, but it is overly sparse. While concise, it omits details that would improve usability without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic action. However, it lacks context about error handling, authorization requirements, or side effects, which would be helpful for an agent to use the tool reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema parameter 'gpg_key_id' has a tautological description 'gpg_key_id', adding no meaning. The tool description does not elaborate on the parameter's format, origin, or how to obtain it. Despite 100% schema coverage, the description fails to add useful context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a GPG key for the authenticated user', specifying the action (delete), resource (GPG key), and scope (authenticated user). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create, get, and list GPG keys.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create, get, list GPG keys). It lacks prerequisites, conditions for use, or exclusions. The agent has no context to decide whether this tool is appropriate in a given situation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like irreversibility or authentication requirements. It simply restates the action without adding context beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. It is front-loaded and leaves no room for filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks expected details such as whether the deletion is permanent, what the response status is, or that the key must belong to the authenticated user. A simple deletion tool should include such context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema parameter 'ssh_signing_key_id' has a tautological description. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter's format, origin, or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Delete) and resource (SSH signing key) and specifies the scope (authenticated user). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_gpg_key or delete_public_ssh_key.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., deleting GPG keys or public SSH keys). It does not mention prerequisites or context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, what happens if the key_id is invalid or missing, or whether the operation is idempotent. The description simply states 'Get', which implies a read operation, but lacks sufficient transparency for an agent to anticipate side effects or errors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it could be more informative without losing brevity. The front-loading is adequate as the action and resource are stated immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool, the description is minimally complete. It does not mention the output (e.g., key details), error scenarios, or response format. Given no output schema, the agent lacks context on what to expect from the call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the only parameter ('key_id') with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. An agent must rely on the schema alone to understand the parameter's purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a public SSH key for the authenticated user' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create' or 'delete' by the verb 'get', but does not explicitly differentiate from 'get_ssh_signing_key' beyond the name. The purpose is clear overall.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., listing keys or creating). There is no indication of prerequisites (e.g., key must exist) or when not to use it. An agent has no context to decide if this is the right tool for retrieving a specific key.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or that it returns a list of user objects. The schema provides some info on pagination, but the description adds no extra context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence that captures the core functionality. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it might be too brief given the lack of other context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what it does, but it does not explain what the returned data looks like or any constraints. With 2 parameters fully described in schema, this is acceptable but could be improved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (per_page and page), fully specifying their meaning. The description does not add any additional parameter information, so it meets the baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'people the authenticated user follows'. It is specific and matches the tool name. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_followers_for_authenticated_user, which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or comparison to similar tools for listing followers or following.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention pagination, authentication requirements, or that the result is a list of user objects. The schema provides pagination params but the description does not highlight that outputs are paginated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence front-loaded with the verb. It is concise, but the brevity sacrifices completeness. Still, every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about return values (e.g., list of users) and pagination behavior. It is too minimal to fully prepare the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters (per_page, page) are well-documented with links to pagination docs. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List followers of the authenticated user' clearly identifies the verb (list) and resource (followers) scoped to the authenticated user. It differentiates from siblings like github_users_list_followers_for_user which apply to a different user, though this is implicit via the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_users_list_followers_for_user, github_users_list_followed_by_authenticated_user). The agent is left to infer context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description should carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, safe, or requires authentication. The name implies reading public keys, but the description adds no explicit safety or context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff. It is concise, but it could be more informative while still being brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks output schema information and does not help the agent understand pagination or result format. Given the lack of annotations and siblings, more context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List public keys for a user' clearly states the action (list) and resource (public keys) and target (a user). It is specific but does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_users_list_gpg_keys_for_user or github_users_list_followers_for_user, which also list user resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or any conditions. The agent receives no help in choosing among the many similar list tools for users.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the action. It does not disclose read-only nature, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it is too brief and omits important context. It is efficient but at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool and schema coverage, the description is adequate but lacks output format information and behavioral context. It does not describe what the response contains or any pagination details, making it incomplete for a full understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is already clear. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list), resource (SSH signing keys), and scope (for the authenticated user). It effectively conveys the tool's purpose and distinguishes from siblings like github_users_list_ssh_signing_keys_for_user by specifying 'authenticated user'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listing keys for another user or other key-related tools. Lacks prerequisites or contextual clues for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the action and resource, disclosing nothing about permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or the nature of the data. The agent has no insight into what happens when called.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is direct and front-loaded. It is efficient, but could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose. Overall, it earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is present, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of SSH signing key objects). For a list endpoint, this information is critical for the agent to interpret the result. The description is too minimal given the lack of output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The username description 'username' is tautological but the per_page and page descriptions are detailed including links to pagination docs. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'List SSH signing keys for a user' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action and target (SSH signing keys). It distinguishes from listing for authenticated user by naming convention, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_ssh_signing_keys_for_authenticated_user'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_ssh_signing_keys_for_authenticated_user or list_gpg_keys_for_user. The agent must infer from context that this lists for a specific user by username.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Unblock a user' implies a mutation but does not disclose effects (e.g., what happens if user is already unblocked, required permissions, side effects). This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (two words) with no wasted text. While it is concise, it may be too terse, but it adheres to the principle of being front-loaded and minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description lacks necessary context such as authentication requirements, return values, error handling, or whether the operation is reversible. It is incomplete for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'username' with description 'username', giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Unblock a user' clearly states the action (unblock) and the resource (a user). It is specific and uses a strong verb. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_orgs_unblock_user or indicate the context (e.g., unblock from the authenticated user's blocked list).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_users_block or github_orgs_unblock_user. The description does not mention prerequisites, scope, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., stopping in-progress jobs, irreversibility) or return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but arguably too minimal. It could include essential context while remaining brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the extensive sibling list and the absence of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the effect of cancellation, possible errors, or what the agent can expect in return.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions, but those descriptions are trivial (just parameter names). The tool description adds no additional meaning. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Cancel') and the resource ('a workflow run'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'approve_workflow_run' and 'force_cancel_workflow_run'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., force_cancel_workflow_run) or any prerequisites. The description lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only states 'Get' which implies read-only but does not explicitly disclose any behavioral traits such as auth requirements, side effects, or limits. The description adds minimal value beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) but too brief, lacking any structure or additional detail. It is not wasteful but misses the opportunity to include helpful context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns or any relevant context such as required permissions. For a simple read tool, it is incomplete given the lack of annotations and output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. However, the parameter descriptions are merely parameter names ('owner', 'repo') and add no additional meaning. The tool description does not elaborate on parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get), the specific resource (private repo fork PR workflow settings), and the scope (repository), distinguishing it from the organization-level sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance or when-to-use/alternatives mentioned. The description does not differentiate from the 'set' sibling or other related tools, leaving the agent without context on when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It only states 'list' (a read operation) but omits pagination behavior, default page size, required permissions, or that results are paginated. This is insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters including pagination fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single-sentence description is concise but overly brief, omitting critical details like return type or pagination. It is not wasteful but lacks the necessary information for an agent to use it effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should at least mention what the tool returns (e.g., a list of repository IDs or names). It fails to do so, and does not describe pagination handling. For a simple list operation, it is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it implies the need for 'org' and 'secret_name' but does not explain 'page' or 'per_page' semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List selected repositories for an organization secret' clearly identifies the verb (list) and resource (selected repositories for an org secret), distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_selected_repo_to_org_secret' or 'set_selected_repos_for_org_secret'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., to view which repos have access to a secret). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention read-only nature, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The description is too terse to provide transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (5 words), which is efficient but lacks critical details. It is front-loaded but at the expense of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, many siblings, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits filtering behavior, pagination, and return format, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions are present. However, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; e.g., it does not explain that 'name' filters results.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('self-hosted runners for a repository'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list for org or get single runner.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_actions_get_self_hosted_runner_for_repo or github_actions_list_self_hosted_runners_for_org. No mention of filtering or pagination context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Set', but fails to mention if the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, what effects occur, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is under-specified for a tool with a nested object parameter. While concise, it lacks necessary detail to be considered appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with a nested body, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the body format, required permissions, return value, or possible errors, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but the parameter descriptions are minimal ('org' and 'Request body (JSON object)'). The tool description adds no semantic value beyond the schema; agents need more detail on the body structure to invoke correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set'), the resource ('fork PR contributor approval permissions'), and scope ('organization'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like the 'get' variant and the repository-level tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., repository-level set tool), prerequisites, or the expected structure of the request body. An agent cannot determine appropriate use cases from this description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Set' without explaining if it replaces or adds repositories, required permissions, consequences, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. Highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (many siblings, no output schema), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain how the body parameter works, whether this sets a full replacement or adds to existing, or what the return value indicates.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the body parameter structure or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Set) and resource (repositories allowed to use self-hosted runners in an organization), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like list, disable, or enable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_repo_access_to_self_hosted_runner_group_in_org). Missing context on when to choose this tool over similar set operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation ('Get'), which matches the tool's nature. However, it does not disclose any side effects, permission requirements, or expected output beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, making it concise. However, it is too minimal to convey useful information beyond the tool's name, scoring average on structuring content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple input and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for a basic getter. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements and return value format, leaving room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'thread_id' with a tautological description 'thread_id'. The tool description does not add any extra meaning or context about this parameter, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of useful information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Get' and the resource 'thread subscription for the authenticated user', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'set_thread_subscription' and 'delete_thread_subscription'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to get vs set or delete a subscription. It lacks any context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention traits like pagination, filtering, sorting, or what happens on error. The single sentence provides no behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it is under-specified and lacks necessary detail, so it does not achieve the efficiency of a well-crafted concise description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is very incomplete. It does not mention filtering, sorting, pagination, or required fields, leaving the agent without sufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List tasks for repository' clearly states the verb (list), resource (tasks), and scope (repository). It distinguishes from siblings like 'github_agent_tasks_list_tasks' by specifying the repo context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_tasks' or 'get_task_by_id'. The description lacks usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it triggers a GitHub Actions workflow, creates a PR, or requires specific permissions). The minimal description leaves the agent without critical behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence) but lacks essential detail. Conciseness alone does not compensate for the lack of usage and behavioral information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context about what the autofix entails, whether it's asynchronous, and what the result is. It fails to fully inform the agent about the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters are required and described in the schema, but descriptions are trivial ('owner', 'repo', 'alert_number'). The tool description adds no additional meaning, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('autofix for a code scanning alert'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_autofix' (read) and 'commit_autofix' (commit).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'commit_autofix' or 'get_autofix'. No context about prerequisites or typical workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention pagination (though parameter descriptions touch it), rate limits, or the nature of the output. The description only states the basic purpose, leaving the agent unaware of important behavioral traits like the need for pagination or that it returns a list of alerts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single 5-word sentence, which is concise but not sufficiently informative given the tool's complexity. It front-loads the core action but lacks any additional structure or context. Every word is necessary, but the description could be expanded without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain how pagination works (despite parameters for it), how filtering by state/severity/tool works, or what the response format is. The description only covers the basic purpose, leaving agents without sufficient context to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'List' and resource 'code scanning alerts' scoped to 'a repository'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like github_code_scanning_list_alerts_for_org and github_code_scanning_get_alert by specifying the repository scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that this tool lists multiple alerts (vs. get_alert for a single alert) or that it can be filtered by tool, state, severity, etc. There are no exclusions or context about when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 merely says 'create a codespace', but does not mention side effects (e.g., billing implications), permissions required, rate limits, or that the operation is non-reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is efficient, but it lacks critical information to be truly concise. It does not earn its place by providing additional context beyond the bare action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description omits important details: what the `body` parameter expects, whether the codespace is immediately started, what is returned (e.g., codespace object). Without an output schema, the description should clarify return value. Incomplete for a creation tool with nested parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and minimal schema descriptions. No clarification of the `body` parameter structure or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('create') and the resource ('codespace from a pull request'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling creation tools like `create_for_authenticated_user` and `create_with_repo_for_authenticated_user`.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description gives no insight into selecting this over other codespace creation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read operation but fails to mention pagination, permissions, or response format. Minimal detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single sentence of 6 words, concise but bordering on under-specification. It is efficient but could include more context without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain pagination, list content, or how this tool differs from similar tools in other namespaces (e.g., github_actions_*).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'selected repositories for an organization secret'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like add/remove/set_selected_repos.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add/remove/set). Does not mention pagination or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'update,' implying mutation but omits details on permissions, idempotency, side effects, or limitations of the free-form body parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At 4 words, the description is concise but too brief to provide necessary context. It front-loads the purpose but omits other key information, losing effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutation nature and free-form body without output schema, the description should explain updatable fields or constraints. It is severely incomplete for the complexity involved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'enterprise,' 'team_slug', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The body parameter lacks structure guidance, and the description adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update an enterprise team' clearly states a specific verb ('update') and resource ('enterprise team'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context on prerequisites, when updating is appropriate, or what fields can be changed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must convey all behavioral traits. It does not mention that deletion is permanent, requires authentication, or any side effects. The word 'delete' implies destruction, but the description omits important safety cues.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loading the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not cover error conditions, required preconditions (e.g., comment existence), or behavior on missing resources, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions for gist_id and comment_id are merely the parameter names, providing no added meaning. The tool description does not explain these parameters, so the agent has no context beyond the schema's non-informative labels.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a gist comment' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (gist comment), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, get, or update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., listing comments first, checking existence). The description is self-explanatory but lacks context for optimal agent usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List public gists' and does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or that it returns a list of gist objects. The input schema hints at pagination, but the description itself is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and depth. It is too minimal to provide meaningful guidance. While not verbose, it could benefit from additional context without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description is still incomplete. It does not explain what the response contains, any ordering defaults, or if there are any limitations. The schema helps, but the description alone does not provide sufficient context for an agent to confidently use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (since, per_page, page), each with clear explanations and links. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List public gists' clearly states the verb (list) and the specific resource (public gists). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like github_gists_list (which lists the authenticated user's gists) and github_gists_list_for_user (which lists gists for a specific user), as 'public' specifies a global subset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that to list gists for a specific user one should use github_gists_list_for_user, or that to list starred gists one should use github_gists_list_starred. The description lacks any context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List starred gists,' omitting crucial details such as the fact that it returns gists starred by the authenticated user, potential authentication requirements, or any side effects. The lack of such information limits the agent's understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at only two words. While it avoids verbosity, it lacks structure and additional information that could aid the agent without adding clutter. It is minimally functional but uninformative beyond the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and good schema coverage, the description is still incomplete. It fails to explain the scope ('my starred gists'), return format, or any behavioral context. Without an output schema, more detail would be beneficial. The description relies heavily on the tool name for meaning.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List starred gists' is clear and specific. The verb 'list' and the resource 'starred gists' precisely indicate the action, and it effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like github_gists_list (lists user's gists) and github_gists_list_for_user (lists another user's gists).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_gists_list or github_gists_list_public. It lacks information about prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'list', implying a read operation, but does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The lack of detail reduces transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 7 words, making it highly concise. However, it lacks any additional structure or front-loading of key details beyond the core action. While not verbose, it is under-informative, balancing conciseness with completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the response contains (e.g., list of configurations). It does not. The parameter coverage is complete, but the lack of return value information and behavioral context makes this tool description incomplete for an agent to fully understand its usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% parameter documentation coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it simply repeats the schema's information. Therefore, it meets the baseline but does not exceed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'List' and the resource 'hosted compute network configurations' scoped to 'an organization'. This distinctly sets it apart from sibling tools like 'create', 'delete', 'get', and 'update' for the same resource, and from other list operations like 'list_hosted_runners_for_org'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get' for a single configuration, 'list' for all). It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description provides no details beyond 'lock'. It does not disclose that locking an issue prevents new comments (but does not close it), or any side effects. Since there are no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to provide behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (three words), but at the cost of completeness. It is front-loaded, but lacks sufficient detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what locking an issue entails, any prerequisites, or the effect on the issue.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions, though minimal). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters like 'body' (which is optional) or the required ones. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Lock an issue' clearly states the action (lock) and the resource (issue). Among sibling tools like github_issues_unlock and github_issues_create, it uniquely identifies a specific operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool (e.g., to prevent further comments on a resolved or controversial issue) or when not to use it (e.g., if the issue is already locked). No alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full weight. It only states the listing action without disclosing authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but slightly redundant with the tool name. It lacks any structured format (e.g., bullet points) and does not earn its place beyond restating the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool, the description omits essential context such as what constitutes a 'failed' invitation, required permissions, and the format of the response. Given the number of sibling tools and the lack of annotations, more detail is needed to allow correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'org' parameter having minimal description ('org') and pagination parameters having standard GitHub documentation. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List failed organization invitations' clearly states the verb (List) and the resource (failed organization invitations). It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_orgs_list_pending_invitations by specifying 'failed'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_orgs_list_pending_invitations. There is no when-to or when-not-to, nor any mention of prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, required authentication, error conditions, or rate limits. For a write operation, this leaves the agent unaware of important implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (three words), which is efficient but lacks structure or additional detail. It could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should explain what the return value is or confirm success, but it does not. It also misses context about error handling and the scope of the update (e.g., whether it's a full replace or partial update).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 no extra meaning beyond the schema; both parameters ('org' and 'body') have minimal schema descriptions that are not enhanced by the tool description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (update) and the resource (organization), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get, delete, or create operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions) or scenarios where other tools like 'github_orgs_get' or 'github_orgs_delete' would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or that it returns a list. The schema includes pagination parameters but the description omits any mention of this behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) but lacks structure. It could benefit from a brief summary of behavior and return type.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without annotations or an output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to mention what the tool returns (list of pull requests) or how pagination works, leaving important gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List pull requests' is clear and specific, using a verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like github_pulls_get or github_pulls_create, which have different actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where other tools (e.g., github_pulls_get for a single PR) would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states 'Delete a repository' without specifying behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, requires confirmation, moves to trash, or requires specific credentials. The description is critically insufficient for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (two required params, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It lacks essential context about authorization requirements, irreversibility, and post-deletion state. The description is incomplete for a safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions 'owner' and 'repo' that merely repeat the parameter names. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a repository' uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('repository'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like github_repos_create_in_org, github_repos_get, and github_repos_update which perform different actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), or consequences (e.g., irreversibility). Among siblings, there are no other delete-repo tools, but the description lacks any contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic retrieval, such as authentication requirements, read-only nature, or behavior when no builds exist. The description adds no value beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise with zero wasted words, earning its place by clearly stating the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should provide context about return values and prerequisites. It does not mention what a Pages build is, what data is returned, or any preconditions (e.g., Pages must be enabled). The description is too sparse for the agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: both parameters (owner, repo) have simple descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate per guidelines.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get latest Pages build' clearly specifies the action (Get), the resource (Pages build), and the scope (latest). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like github_repos_get_pages_build (which may target a specific build) and github_repos_list_pages_builds (which lists all builds).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a Pages site must be enabled), nor does it indicate when to use other related tools like get_pages_build for a specific build or list_pages_builds for history.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the creation action without disclosing side effects, limits, or requirements beyond the implied authentication.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence but lacks structure and detail, which is appropriate for a simple action but does not provide full clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a complex nested parameter, the description is insufficiently complete—it omits key format, success/error responses, and constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single body parameter with a generic description. With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds no additional meaning, meeting the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (create) and resource (public SSH key) for the authenticated user, distinguishing it from sibling tools like GPG key creation or SSH signing key creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist. The description only states 'Follow a user' without disclosing side effects (e.g., notifications, idempotency, authentication requirements, or behavior if already following).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (two words), which is concise but lacks any structure or supplementary information. While it earns its place, it does not fully serve the agent's needs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description omits necessary context such as authentication requirements, what 'following' entails, or return values. Incomplete for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers the single 'username' parameter at 100%, but the description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter name. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Follow a user' clearly states the action and resource. It is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings like block, unfollow, or list followers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., check_following, unfollow). No prerequisites or context provided for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description fails to disclose destructive consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion, impact on workflows). Only states the action without behavioral context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no waste. However, it is so minimal that it omits potentially useful structure. Still, for a simple tool, it is appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward deletion tool, the description is barely adequate. It lacks information about return value (none provided) and side effects. Given no output schema and no annotations, more context would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions for 'org' and 'secret_name' are tautological ('org', 'secret_name'). Tool description adds no further meaning or constraints (e.g., naming rules, case sensitivity). Despite 100% schema coverage, the descriptions are unhelpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (organization secret). It is specific and unambiguous, distinguishing it from related tools like 'create_or_update_org_secret' or 'get_org_secret'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_actions_delete_repo_secret). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, reversibility, or side effects, but it only states 'Delete'. No information on what happens to workflows referencing the variable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it could be improved by including necessary context without adding length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for a delete operation. It lacks information about permissions, existence requirements, and potential impacts.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage but parameter descriptions are minimal (just the parameter name). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the function.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete an organization variable' clearly states the verb (Delete) and the resource (organization variable), which distinguishes it from siblings like delete_org_secret, delete_repo_variable, and delete_environment_variable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when deletion is appropriate. The description is purely functional.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects like stopping active runners.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no extraneous words. Purpose is front-loaded and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite simple parameters, the description lacks essential context: how to obtain runner_id, the effect on active workflows, and when deletion is appropriate. Fails to compensate for missing annotations and output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions for org and runner_id are tautological (just the parameter names). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the required fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Delete), resource (self-hosted runner), and scope (organization). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_self_hosted_runner_from_repo and delete_self_hosted_runner_group_from_org.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as deleting from a repo or group. No prerequisites or context like needing to list runners first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning irreversibility, required permissions, or effects on the run. This is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and front-loaded. However, it is so concise that it omits important context, slightly reducing informativeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (delete operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks details on consequences, permanence, and required permissions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes the parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete workflow run logs' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (workflow run logs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_workflow_run' and 'delete_artifact' by specifying logs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as deleting the run itself or other log-related tools. No prerequisites or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. 'Force cancel' implies an aggressive termination but lacks details on side effects, prerequisites (e.g., permissions), or what 'force' entails. This is insufficient for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At three words, the description is extremely concise and front-loaded. However, it may be too terse and could benefit from a brief explanation of 'force' to aid understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal and lacks crucial context such as when force cancel is appropriate, typical return values, or error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the three parameters (owner, repo, run_id). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, achieving the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Force cancel a workflow run' clearly states the verb ('force cancel') and the resource ('workflow run'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cancel_workflow_run' by implying a more forceful action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the regular 'cancel_workflow_run' tool. There is no mention of use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose side effects, permissions, or safety profile. It only states 'Create configuration' which implies mutation, but gives no details on what is destroyed, rate limits, or required authentication scopes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with 12 words is highly concise and front-loaded with the action. Could be slightly expanded without losing efficiency, but still effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks details about return value, error cases, or prerequisites. It is too brief for a creation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% but parameter descriptions are minimal. The description adds context about the overall purpose but not specific parameter semantics (e.g., what should be in the body). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action ('Create configuration') and the target resource ('just-in-time runner for a repository'). It is specific and distinguishes from the sibling tool for org scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like runner registration tokens or label management. The description simply states the function without context about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states the purpose. No mention of read-only nature, permissions, or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no fluff. Efficiently communicates the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacking output schema and no description of return values. Does not cover what 'cache usage' entails (e.g., size, counts, limits).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter information. Schema descriptions are trivial (just parameter names), offering no additional meaning beyond the names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', resource 'GitHub Actions cache usage', and scope 'for a repository'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like the org-level variants.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., listing cache or getting org usage). No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but omits details like required permissions, side effects, or response structure. For a tool with no output schema, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with six words, zero waste. Front-loaded with verb and resource. Highly concise and appropriate for a simple get tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool is simple (one param, no output schema), but description lacks context about what the permissions entail or what the response contains. Without output schema, more detail would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter 'org' described as 'org'. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema already documents the parameter adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get default workflow permissions for an organization', specifying verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling 'get...repository' due to 'organization' qualifier, but does not explicitly differentiate from other get tools like 'get_github_actions_permissions_organization'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Missing context like prerequisites, when not to use, or typical use cases. The description is purely declarative without situational advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states it's a get operation but omits details like authentication requirements, scopes, rate limits, or what the response contains. The lack of output schema exacerbates this gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence of 6 words, front-loaded with the key action. It is efficient but could be expanded slightly without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. The agent cannot discern what 'default workflow permissions' entails or how the returned data should be used.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the schema descriptions are minimal ('owner', 'repo'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get default workflow permissions for a repository' clearly states the verb (get) and resource (default workflow permissions for a repo). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like the organization-level counterpart and the set variant.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus other similar getters (e.g., for allowed actions or permissions), nor does it state prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of disclosure. It only states 'Get platforms' but does not reveal any behavioral traits such as whether the call is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the result is paginated. The description adds no context beyond the action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could be improved by adding more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what platforms are returned, any filtering possibilities, or the format of the response. The agent lacks crucial context for proper invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but the schema description for 'org' is merely 'org'. The description does not add any additional meaning about what platforms are or how the response is structured. According to the baseline rule, with high coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'platforms', and the scope 'in an organization'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools such as get_hosted_runner_for_org (single runner) and list_hosted_runners_for_org (list runners).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_hosted_runners_github_owned_images_for_org or get_hosted_runners_machine_specs_for_org. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose whether authentication is needed, rate limits, or other side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the implied read action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It fronts the action. However, it is perhaps too brief and could be expanded without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description should provide some indication of the return structure or typical usage context. It does not describe what 'review history' includes or how the response is formatted. Given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations, more detail is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, meaning each parameter (owner, repo, run_id) has a basic label. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning, such as format or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the review history for a workflow run' clearly states the verb (get) and the resource (review history for a workflow run). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_workflow_run or get_pending_deployments_for_run by specifying 'review history'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other similar tools (e.g., get_pending_deployments_for_run). No mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or context. With hundreds of sibling tools, this omission is significant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. But it only states the operation, with no mention of permissions, read-only nature, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns. For a simple retrieval tool, this is a minor gap; the agent can infer from similar tools, but completeness is average.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters described), but the descriptions are trivial ('org', 'runner_group_id'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'self-hosted runner group for an organization', which distinguishes it from list-based siblings like 'list_self_hosted_runner_groups_for_org'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other 'get' tools for runners or groups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listing all runner groups first. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing the runner_group_id) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description provides no behavioral details beyond the name. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, whether authentication is needed, or that pagination is supported (though parameters hint at it). The description fails to carry the burden of transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence that accurately conveys the purpose. However, it could be slightly improved by mentioning optional pagination, but given the tool's simplicity, it remains effective without being wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., a list of variables) and mention pagination behavior. Currently, it offers no such context, making it incomplete for an agent to understand the full effect of its invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All parameters (org, per_page, page) are fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List organization variables' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (organization variables). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create, get, update, and delete operations for organization variables, as well as from list_org_secrets which targets a different resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this lists all variables (with pagination) while get_org_variable retrieves a single variable. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, return format, or any side effects. The schema covers pagination parameters but the description adds no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (3 words), which is concise and front-loaded. However, it may be too minimal for some users. Still, it earns its place without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It does not explain what workflows are returned or any important details about the list. This is insufficient for a tool with many siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage and describes parameters adequately. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List repository workflows' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (repository workflows), which distinguishes it from siblings that list other entities like runs or artifacts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_actions_list_workflow_runs). The description lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits beyond the schema. It only states 'List' without mentioning pagination, authorization, or response format, which is minimal for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with a clear verb-object format. It is concise with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list endpoint with a well-documented schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not mention the return type or that results are paginated, but the schema covers pagination parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes each parameter (org, per_page, page) with adequate detail. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List) and the resource (repositories allowed to use self-hosted runners) with an organization scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like those listing runners or other types of selected repositories, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_selected_repos_for_org_secret or list_self_hosted_runners_for_org. The description lacks context for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond 'list'. It omits details on read-only nature, side effects, or pagination behavior, which are only partially covered by parameter descriptions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no fluff, and directly conveys the tool's purpose. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not mention what is returned (e.g., a list of runner objects). While inputs are well-described, the agent lacks information about the response format, which is a gap for a list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions for org, runner_group_id, per_page, and page. The tool description adds no additional meaning, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resources (self-hosted runners in a group for an organization). It is specific and avoids tautology, though does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like list_self_hosted_runners_for_org.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as list_self_hosted_runners_for_org or list_self_hosted_runner_groups_for_org. The agent is left to infer usage from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the removal action but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or any other behavioral traits. This minimal information is insufficient for an agent to understand the full impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no superfluous words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic action and resource but lacks critical context such as whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, and any output or side effects. Given the lack of annotations, the description is moderately complete but has clear gaps for a safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions that merely repeat the parameter names. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 for high coverage without added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'remove' and the resource 'selected repository from an organization secret', providing specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add' by the verb, but does not explicitly differentiate from other remove operations (e.g., from org variable).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context. The single sentence does not indicate any usage conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Remove' without mentioning side effects, permissions required, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no unnecessary words. The description is as concise as possible.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no output schema or annotations. Description is minimal and adequate for a simple removal action, but lacks completeness regarding return values, error handling, or preconditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond parameter names. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and the target ('selected repository from an organization variable'). It distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'add_selected_repo_to_org_variable'. However, it could be more specific about what an 'organization variable' is.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., removing from org secret). No prerequisites mentioned, such as the variable must exist or the repository must already be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden, but it only states the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., job state changes, permissions needed, potential rate limits or costs).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the key verb-resource. It is efficient, though could benefit from a second sentence for context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description omits important context such as return value, error conditions, permissions, and effect on workflow run status. It is not complete for an agent to use reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with basic descriptions for each parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the 'body' object structure or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Re-run a job from a workflow run' clearly identifies the action (re-run) and the resource (a specific job), distinguishing it from siblings like re-running the entire workflow or only failed jobs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_actions_re_run_workflow, github_actions_re_run_workflow_failed_jobs). The description does not mention prerequisites or suitable contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only indicates mutation ('Set') but does not mention whether it overwrites existing settings, requires specific permissions, or is irreversible. This is insufficient for a configuration-changing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but too brief for the tool's complexity. It could be more informative without being verbose, e.g., by hinting at the body structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and the complex body parameter, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly. The body format and the effect of the operation (e.g., full replacement) are not explained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the descriptions add little value: 'org' is tautological, and 'body' is only described as a JSON object without specifying its expected structure (e.g., allowed_actions, github_owned_allowed_actions). The body parameter is critical and underspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('allowed actions and reusable workflows') with scope ('for an organization'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like github_actions_set_allowed_actions_repository and github_actions_get_allowed_actions_organization.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for setting allowed actions at the organization level but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_actions_set_github_actions_permissions_organization) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the action ('set'). It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the body is required, what happens on error, or rate limits. The mutation nature is implied but not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that is front-loaded and to the point. However, it may be overly terse given the complexity of the body parameter, but overall it is concise and structured effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the nested body with undefined structure and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on expected body fields, return values, or potential side effects, which is insufficient for confident tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. However, the descriptions are minimal (parameter names only) and the tool description adds no extra meaning, especially for the 'body' parameter which is a complex nested object without hinted structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set artifact and log retention settings for a repository' clearly specifies the action ('set') and the resource ('artifact and log retention settings for a repository'), distinguishing it from siblings like the 'get' counterpart or the organization-level set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get' or org-level variants), nor are prerequisites or context mentioned. The description simply states the function without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 does not disclose whether the operation is destructive (overwrites labels), idempotent, or requires specific permissions. The behavioral impact is unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it could be improved by including more contextual information while remaining concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, and the description is minimal. It fails to explain the operation's effect (e.g., does it replace all labels? Requires existing runner?). Given the complexity of the operation and sibling tools, the description is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for 'org' and 'runner_id' as simple strings, and 'body' as a JSON object. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set', resource 'custom labels for a self-hosted runner', and scope 'for an organization'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'github_actions_set_custom_labels_for_self_hosted_runner_for_repo' which targets a repository.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_actions_add_custom_labels_to_self_hosted_runner_for_org' or 'github_actions_remove_all_custom_labels_from_self_hosted_runner_for_org'. The description does not indicate prerequisites or contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Lacks annotations and description omits behavioral details such as idempotency, required permissions, or whether settings are additive or overwritten. 'Set' implies mutation, but no safety or side-effect info.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Could benefit from brief usage hint, but overall concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and no explanation of body parameter structure or expected outcome. Incomplete for a tool with nested object parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but parameter descriptions are trivial (only field names). Description adds no extra meaning; baseline 3 per rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action 'Set' and resource 'fork PR contributor approval permissions' at repository level, distinguishing from sibling organization-level tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get counterpart, org-level set). No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Set' (mutation) but does not mention required permissions, idempotency, side effects, rate limits, or any constraints. Minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, very concise, front-loaded with action and resource. No unnecessary words, but could be expanded slightly to include usage context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool modifies organization-wide settings, the description is too brief. It does not explain what settings are available, the format of the body parameter, or the effect of the operation. No output schema, so description should provide more completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no additional information about the body structure or expected fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already covers parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Set', the resource 'private repo fork PR workflow settings', and the scope 'organization'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling repository-level tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., the repository-level counterpart or other settings tools). The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, side effects (e.g., user stops receiving notifications), or reversibility. The description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency but fails to add any.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of four words, efficiently conveying the core action. It is front-loaded but may be too terse for a complete understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (two required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description could still provide more context about what a repository subscription is and the consequences of deletion. As is, it lacks completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameters 'owner' and 'repo' having minimal descriptions. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a repository subscription' uses a specific verb (Delete) and resource (repository subscription). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_thread_subscription' and 'get_repo_subscription'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_repo_subscription, get_repo_subscription). No when/to not use or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool returns only unread notifications by default, requires authentication, or any other behavioral aspects beyond the bare operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it could include more context without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description does not explain return values or default behavior (e.g., only unread notifications). It leaves the agent to infer behavior from parameter names, which is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter, so the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and the resource (repository notifications for the authenticated user). It distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'github_activity_list_notifications_for_authenticated_user' by specifying 'repository' scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the broader notification list tool. There is no mention of when to set 'all' or 'participating' filters, nor any alternatives or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'list' without mentioning pagination, ordering, rate limits, or the return format. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence. It is concise and front-loaded, but lacks any elaboration. It earns its place but could benefit from additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and only three parameters, the description should provide more context about what constitutes a 'watched' repository, the structure of the output, or any limitations. The minimal description leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter (username, per_page, page). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List repositories watched by a user' clearly specifies the action (list) and resource (repositories watched by a user). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_watched_repos_for_authenticated_user (which scopes to the authenticated user) and list_repos_starred_by_user (starred vs watched).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, context about watched vs starred repositories, or when to use this over list_watched_repos_for_authenticated_user.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is concise, though its brevity comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool (adding a repository to an installation with two ID parameters), the bare description might be minimally adequate. However, the lack of output schema and weak parameter descriptions reduce its completeness. It covers the essential action but leaves out important context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are tautological (e.g., 'installation_id' described as 'installation_id'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, failing to clarify the format or scope of these IDs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add a repository to an app installation' clearly states the verb (add) and the two resources (repository, app installation). It is specific and directly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'github_apps_remove_repo_from_installation_for_authenticated_user'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description lacks any context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the operation (get) but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires specific authentication, or has rate limits. The minimal description fails to convey important behavioral context beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is appropriately front-loaded and contains no extraneous information, earning a top score for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what the installation object represents or that the result pertains to the authenticated app. For a get operation, the context is partially complete but could benefit from a brief note on return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage (1 parameter with description). However, the description for the parameter is just a tautology ('installation_id'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format or source of the ID. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage, but no added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get an installation for the authenticated app' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (installation for the authenticated app). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_org_installation' and 'get_repo_installation' by specifying 'authenticated app'. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it requires prior authentication or that the installation ID must correspond to an installation of the authenticated app. Without usage context, an agent might confuse it with installation lookup by org or repo.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get' implying a read operation, but fails to mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the user has no installation. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about side effects or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single 6-word sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it sacrifices helpful detail for brevity, missing opportunities to add value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a GitHub App tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what a 'user installation' is, what the response contains, and any error conditions. The current description lacks this context, leaving the agent underinformed for successful invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers the only parameter (username) with 100% description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'username' label. Per the baseline for high coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('user installation'), and the context ('for the authenticated app'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_org_installation' or 'get_repo_installation' by specifying 'user', making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative installation retrieval tools (e.g., get_org_installation, get_repo_installation). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only states the action without disclosing behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the configuration contains. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, perfectly concise, no extraneous information. Every word is necessary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what constitutes a webhook configuration or the return structure, leaving the agent uninformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has no parameters (0 params), so baseline is 4. Description adds nothing beyond the schema, but schema coverage is 100% and no param info is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it retrieves a webhook configuration for an app. Differentiates from siblings targeting different scopes like org or repo, but could be more specific about it being for the authenticated app.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like updating the config or listing deliveries. Agent has no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the action without mentioning non-destructive nature, pagination behavior, or return content. Essential context is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the verb. It is efficient but could benefit from additional context without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks completeness: it does not mention the optional parameters (per_page, cursor, status) or the return value type. Given the complexity and absence of output schema, a more comprehensive description is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions, so the description adds no extra meaning. Per baseline rules, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List deliveries for an app webhook' clearly specifies the verb (List), resource (deliveries), and scope (app webhook), distinguishing it from siblings like github_orgs_list_webhook_deliveries and github_repos_list_webhook_deliveries. The purpose is immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., org or repo webhook delivery tools). It lacks explicit context, exclusions, or references to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update', implying mutation, but does not explain what aspects of the webhook configuration are updated, whether the operation is destructive, any authentication requirements, or rate limits. The parameter 'body' is vague without further details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff. It is concise, but could be slightly more informative without being verbose. No structural issues.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the scope (the authenticated app), the required body structure, return values, or how it differs from similar tools (e.g., update_webhook_config_for_org). The agent is left with significant ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (the only parameter 'body' has a description: 'Request body (JSON object)'). However, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The body's expected properties are not explained, so the agent lacks context on how to structure the request.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The name and description 'Update a webhook configuration for an app' clearly state the verb (Update) and resource (webhook configuration). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_webhook_config_for_app, update_webhook_config_for_org, and update_webhook_config_for_repo by specifying 'for app'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool is preferred over get_webhook_config_for_app or the org/repo variants.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get all budgets' with no mention of pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or that it is a read-only operation. This is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded but may be too brief to cover all necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, pagination, filtering) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain pagination, filtering behavior, or return values, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description (e.g., page, per_page, scope). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'all budgets', and the scope 'for an organization'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_budget_org by specifying 'all'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_budget_org or delete/update sibling tools. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only says 'Get ... report' with no disclosure of behavioral traits like return format, pagination, rate limits, or side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no wasted words. However, it could benefit from more structure (e.g., bulleted constraints) without becoming verbose. Still, highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, yet the description does not explain what the report contains or how the optional filters affect results. With 7 parameters and no output schema, more context is needed for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, clearly describing each of the 7 parameters (org, year, month, day, user, model, product). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get billing premium request usage report for an organization'—specific verb (get), resource (premium request usage report), and scope (organization). Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_github_billing_usage_report_org' and 'get_github_billing_premium_request_usage_report_user'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does without mentioning prerequisites, context, or scenarios where other tools would be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It states it gets a campaign (read operation) but does not disclose any permissions, rate limits, or side effects. For a simple GET, the behavior is assumed, but the description adds no extra context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. No words are wasted, and it is appropriately brief for a straightforward GET operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (two parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. However, it does not clarify what a 'campaign summary' entails compared to a full campaign, which could be relevant for an agent deciding to use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, but each parameter description is merely the parameter name ('org', 'campaign_number'), providing no additional meaning. The description does not explain what the parameters represent or their expected formats, so it adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'campaign for an organization', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, or update. However, the tool name includes 'summary' but the description just says 'campaign', which is a minor inconsistency.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool is used to retrieve a single campaign by number, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this over listing campaigns or other alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It merely states 'List campaigns' without mentioning pagination, filtering, rate limits, or that results are paginated—despite the schema containing page, per_page, state, and sort parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks information about the response format (e.g., that it returns a list of campaigns) and does not explain the filtering/pagination options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List campaigns for an organization' is specific with a clear verb ('List') and resource ('campaigns for an organization'), and it distinguishes itself from other campaign-related tools like create, delete, get, and update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_campaign_summary), nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention idempotency, side effects, or what constitutes a valid check run. Minimal information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, efficient sentence with no extraneous words. Front-loaded with actionable information. Ideal conciseness for a simple create operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the nested object parameter and no output schema, the description should provide more context about required body fields or URL structure. It feels incomplete and underspecified for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but schema descriptions are trivial ('owner', 'repo', 'body'). The description adds no value beyond schema; the nested 'body' parameter lacks structure hints. Baseline 3 not achieved because schema descriptions are weak, and description does not compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Create a check run' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's action. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'github_checks_update' and 'github_checks_get'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The description lacks any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits like pagination support, filtering options (status, check_name, filter), or the nature of the response. The tool has parameters for filtering and pagination, but the description does not mention them, leaving the agent unaware of these capabilities.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. While very short, it effectively communicates the essential information without unnecessary words. It could benefit from including key usage details, but for a simple listing operation, it is adequately structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema and the presence of 8 parameters (including pagination and filtering), the description should have mentioned these aspects to provide a complete picture. It does not explain what is returned or how to interpret the results, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with all 8 parameters having descriptions that explain their purpose (e.g., 'check_name', 'status', 'filter', 'per_page', 'page'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'check runs', and the context 'in a check suite', which differentiates it from sibling tools like github_checks_list_for_ref. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as having a check_suite_id, or comparison with related tools like github_checks_list_for_ref or github_checks_list_suites_for_ref.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing that deletion may be irreversible, the need for confirm_delete when deleting the last analysis, or any other side effects (e.g., impact on alert history).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no redundant information. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or sections) and could be expanded slightly to improve readability without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a deletion tool, critical context is missing: the confirm_delete parameter behavior, the fact that deleting the last analysis may cause loss of historical alert data, and the need for appropriate permissions. The schema provides some of this for confirm_delete, but the description itself is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (delete), the resource (code scanning analysis), and the scope (from a repository). It is specific and directly describes what the tool does, distinguishing it from sibling deletion tools like 'github_code_scanning_delete_codeql_database'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as deleting a code scanning database. The description does not mention prerequisites, required permissions, or the confirm_delete parameter's role in preventing accidental data loss from deleting the last analysis.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is appropriate. However, no additional behavioral details (e.g., whether the alert number is required or what happens if not found) are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence. While it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points), it is efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain what the tool returns. For a retrieval operation, the description should clarify that it returns details of the alert (e.g., severity, location). Additionally, no context about permissions or rate limits is given.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but parameter descriptions are merely the parameter names ('owner', 'repo', 'alert_number'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a code scanning alert' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (code scanning alert). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update' or 'list' alerts, but could be more specific about it being a single alert retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listing alerts or updating alerts. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'list', implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination support (parameters 'before', 'after', 'page', 'per_page'), filtering capabilities (tool_name, severity, state), or that it returns a collection of alerts. This is insufficient for behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence of 6 words. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. It earns a high score for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, many filters, pagination) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't mention pagination, filtering options, or output format. The agent lacks context to fully understand the tool's capabilities.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 12 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. With high coverage, baseline is 3; the description does not enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List code scanning alerts for an organization' with a specific verb (List) and resource (code scanning alerts). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_alerts_for_repo by specifying organization scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that to get alerts for a specific repository, the sibling tool list_alerts_for_repo should be used. The description lacks context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. While the description implies a read-only list operation, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or what side effects (if any) exist. The minimal description adds no additional context beyond the obvious, resulting in an average score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words. However, it could benefit from an additional sentence to explain the purpose of 'recent' or to differentiate from other list tools, but it remains efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, multiple filters, many sibling tools) and lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'analyses' are, how they relate to alerts, or how to use filters like `tool_name` vs `tool_guid`. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to interpret correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds no additional information about parameters, so it does not augment the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'code scanning analyses for a repository'. It is specific enough to convey the basic action, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like `github_code_scanning_list_alerts_for_repo` or `github_code_scanning_list_alert_instances`, which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it specify any prerequisites or context (e.g., 'Use to view analysis results, not alerts'). The absence of guidance forces the agent to infer from the tool name and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, authentication requirements, or response structure. It only restates the name's implication.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary information, though it could be slightly expanded to include key behavioral details without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, pagination, filtering) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention pagination, filtering by status, or that the result is a list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('repositories associated with a code security configuration'), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like attach/detach or create configurations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description lacks any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description fails to mention any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination behavior, or potential errors. The schema covers parameters, but the description adds no extra transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded. However, it could be argued that it is under-specified for a 6-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and a terse description, the agent lacks context on what the response looks like (e.g., repository details, pagination metadata). The schema covers inputs but completeness for a list operation is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not provide any additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get repositories') and the specific context ('associated with an enterprise code security configuration'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_configurations_for_enterprise' by specifying repositories rather than configurations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_repositories_for_configuration' (non-enterprise) or other list tools. No prerequisites or constraints are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits but does not. It omits details like whether updates are partial or full replacements, permission requirements, reversibility, or side effects. The description only states the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded and easy to parse. It is concise but slightly overly minimal; adding one or two additional details would not harm conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (enterprise scope, nested body object, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the body should contain, what the response is, or how it differs from related tools. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema parameter names and types. The body parameter is described merely as 'Request body (JSON object)' without specifying permissible properties, which is minimally informative.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Update), the resource (custom code security configuration), and the scope (for an enterprise). This differentiates it from sibling tools like update_configuration (which operates at the organization level).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_configuration or create_configuration_for_enterprise. The description lacks context on prerequisites, when updates are appropriate, or when other actions might be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but no additional behavioral details like pagination, rate limits, or output format are mentioned. For a simple list, the description 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that gets straight to the point. There is no unnecessary information, though it could arguably include more context without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of names, keys, or objects). This leaves the agent uncertain about how to use the result, making the description incomplete for a list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The description adds no value beyond the schema, which is acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all codes of conduct', making the tool's purpose easy to understand. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'github_codes_of_conduct_get_conduct_code', which retrieves a single code by key.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling for fetching a specific code. There is no mention of prerequisites or context that would help an agent decide between similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only listing but does not disclose behavior like error handling for nonexistent codespaces, authentication needs, or rate limits. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence of five words, no wasted words. Efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but could mention return type or required permissions. It provides minimal context beyond the action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter. The description adds context that the parameter identifies a codespace, but the parameter description itself is a tautology. Baseline met.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'machine types for a codespace'. It distinguishes from sibling 'github_codespaces_repo_machines_for_authenticated_user' which targets repositories, but does not explicitly mention the difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_codespaces_repo_machines_for_authenticated_user' or other codespaces management tools. Missing context on prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits but only states what it does, omitting details like output format, permissions, or pagination behavior, which are critical for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and to the point, but could include useful context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and the description's brevity, it fails to inform the agent about return values or additional behavior, leaving significant gaps for a 3-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters, so the description adds no additional meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate as it neither harms nor improves the schema's clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'codespaces' with scope 'for the organization', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools that list codespaces for users or repositories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_in_repository_for_authenticated_user or list_for_authenticated_user, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it's a removal (modification), but does not mention required permissions, side effects, or if the operation is reversible. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action. It is not verbose, but slightly under-informative for a tool with no annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema) and many sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on outcomes, constraints, and integration with other codespaces secret operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 no extra meaning beyond the parameter names; it merely restates the action. No additional format or constraints are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove selected repository from an organization secret'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling `github_codespaces_add_selected_repo_to_org_secret` by indicating removal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use this over other remove operations like for dependabot or actions secrets). No prerequisites or context for invocation are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'list', implying a read operation, but fails to mention authentication scope, rate limits, pagination, or whether the result includes all machine types or only those compatible with the repo.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, concise sentence front-loaded with the verb 'List' and the resource. No unnecessary words, and the structure efficiently conveys the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimally complete for a simple list operation but lacks details about return format, pagination, or parameter usage context. Given the absence of an output schema, the description should hint at what is returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List available machine types for a repository' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available machine types for a repository'), clearly indicating the action and scope. It helps distinguish from sibling tools like 'codespace_machines_for_authenticated_user' which list machines for a specific codespace.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context (e.g., when provisioning a codespace from a repo). Sibling tools exist for codespace-level machines, but no differentiation is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action but does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, authorization requirements, or side effects. The description is minimal and lacks detail beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose. It is front-loaded and concise, though it could include more detail without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand potential side effects, error conditions, or required permissions. More context about the request body structure and expected behavior would be needed for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. However, the 'body' parameter description is vague ('Request body (JSON object)') and does not add meaning beyond the schema. The tool description does not provide additional context for parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (add), the target (users), the resource (Copilot subscription), and the scope (organization). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_copilot_seats_for_teams' which targets teams instead.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for individual users vs. teams, nor does it specify prerequisites or scenarios where this is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without explaining what 'enable' entails, required permissions, side effects, or reversibility. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose efficiently. It could include more context without being verbose, but it's not wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on prerequisites, scope, and effects, which is critical for an agent to choose and use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage (both parameters described). The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'org' and 'repository_id'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Enable'), the resource ('a repository'), and the context ('for Copilot coding agent in an organization'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from the sibling disable tool and other Copilot permission tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions, org Copilot enabled) or when to use the enable vs disable or permissions tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to mention that the operation is a full replacement (not additive), or whether it's idempotent. The effect of an empty or missing body is unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no redundant words, and the key information is front-loaded. Efficient use of space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (no output schema, nested body parameter), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the body's role or that setting repositories is a replacement operation, leaving the agent uncertain about correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are tautological ('org') or vague ('Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no clarity about the expected structure of the body (e.g., required keys like 'selected_repository_ids').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Set') and identifies the resource ('selected repositories for Copilot coding agent') with organizational scope, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list, enable, and disable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list, enable, disable), no warning that it likely replaces the entire repository list, and no mention of required permissions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Set' (indicating mutation) but does not mention that rules are overwritten, whether partial updates are supported, or any permission requirements. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no filler. It is concise and front-loaded with the essential action and resource. However, it could be improved by adding structure (e.g., bullet points) if more detail were needed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal. Given the tool has a nested object parameter and no output schema, more context is needed about the shape of the body, what constitutes valid exclusion rules, and what the response indicates (success, error). The description does not fully equip the agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described, though the 'body' parameter description is generic ('Request body (JSON object)'). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 due to full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set'), the resource ('Copilot content exclusion rules'), and the scope ('organization'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like the read-only 'copilot_content_exclusion_for_organization'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to set vs get rules, or when to use other Copilot configuration tools). The description lacks context on prerequisites or suitable scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the operation without revealing that it is read-only, requires authentication, or what happens if the alert does not exist (e.g., error response). This lack of transparency could mislead an agent about side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the core purpose concisely. There is no unnecessary information, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important detail. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool and lack of output schema, the description should at least hint at the response structure or error conditions. It does not. An agent has no indication of what data the alert contains or how to interpret the result. The description is incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage but the descriptions are trivial (just the parameter names). The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters. For instance, it does not clarify that 'alert_number' is a numeric identifier or how to obtain it. An agent would only have the parameter names to rely on.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a Dependabot alert' clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (Dependabot alert). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_dependabot_list_alerts_for_repo (list) and github_dependabot_update_alert (update), making it unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., listing alerts or updating them). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. An agent would not know, for example, that this tool is for retrieving a single alert by its number, not for searching or filtering.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only says 'List Dependabot alerts'. It does not mention pagination (though schema has `per_page`, `before`, `after`), authentication requirements, or any side effects. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (6 words) and front-loaded. While it could benefit from more detail, it avoids verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (17 parameters with filtering, sorting, and pagination), the description is insufficient. It lacks context on how filters work together, default behavior, or return values. No output schema provided, so description should compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'Dependabot alerts for a repository', distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle other GitHub features (e.g., actions, issues, pulls).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `github_dependabot_list_alerts_for_org` (for org-level alerts), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should convey behavioral traits. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, nor does it discuss pagination behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. The schema includes page and per_page parameters, but the description ignores them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that directly states the purpose. It is front-loaded and free of extraneous information, achieving maximum conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich input schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify the return format (e.g., list of repository names or IDs) or that pagination is supported, leaving some gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'selected repositories for an organization secret'. It is specific enough to understand the core action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_actions_list_selected_repos_for_org_secret, which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites. The description lacks context on typical use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Set', which implies mutation, but does not mention reversibility, required permissions, side effects, or the default level options. More context is needed for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks important details that would improve understandability without significantly increasing length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without annotations or an output schema, the description fails to provide a complete picture. It does not explain the possible values for the default access level, any prerequisites, or the effect of the operation. For a configuration mutation tool, more information is necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The 'body' parameter is simply described as 'Request body (JSON object)', which is minimal. Baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('default repository access level for Dependabot'). It implies an organization-level operation via the 'org' parameter, distinguishing it from sibling tools that manage specific repositories or secrets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling Dependabot tools (e.g., managing secrets, alerts), but the description does not help the agent choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided to convey safety or destructiveness. The description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is idempotent, how duplicates are handled, or any rate limits. For a bulk mutation tool, this lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence. Every word is meaningful, but it could be slightly expanded with key details without losing conciseness. It is front-loaded with the core action 'Bulk add team members'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool having three parameters and nested objects (the body), the description lacks essential information such as the expected structure of the body, number limits, and output expectations. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional context from the API documentation or interaction history.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Even though schema description coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are tautological (e.g., 'enterprise' -> 'enterprise'). The tool description hints that the body contains membership data, but does not elaborate on the required format or fields. Since the schema does not add meaning, the description marginally compensates, earning a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Bulk add team members' clearly states that the tool adds members to an enterprise team in bulk. This specific verb and resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'github_enterprise_team_memberships_bulk_remove' or 'github_enterprise_team_memberships_add', which are for removing or adding single members respectively.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the single add or bulk remove. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'create', implying a write operation, but omits side effects, permissions needed, idempotency, error conditions, or response structure. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. However, for a creation tool, more detail might be warranted. It is appropriately sized but borders on under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a 'create' operation with a nested body parameter and no output schema, the description is very incomplete. It does not clarify required body fields, response format, or potential errors, leaving the agent guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides (which are minimal: field names and generic descriptions like 'Request body (JSON object)').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create an enterprise team' is a specific verb+resource pair. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like delete, get, list, update, all of which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use versus alternative tools. No prerequisites, scope, or conditions are mentioned. The description lacks any context that would help an agent decide whether this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description does not disclose behavioral traits: it does not state that it is read-only, requires authentication, or returns a boolean. Minimal transparency beyond the basic verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single-sentence description, front-loaded with the key action. However, it could include the return type without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks essential detail about return value (boolean). An agent needs to know the output format to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter (gist_id) with 100% schema coverage. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'gist_id' label. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Check if a gist is starred' is a clear verb+resource statement. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_starred, star, and unstar by specifically focusing on checking starred status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., list_starred for batch checks). No mention of context like requirement for authentication or that it is a read-only check. Usage is implied but no explicit when/why not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Delete a gist' without mentioning that deletion is irreversible, requires authentication, or that the gist must belong to the authenticated user. This is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. It contains no fluff, but is perhaps too minimal for the required behavioral transparency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a well-defined schema, the description lacks essential context such as what happens on success/failure, permissions needed, and error handling. It is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'gist_id'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own description. Baseline is 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a gist' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (gist). It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling gist tools that perform other operations like create, get, or update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites (e.g., gist ownership, authentication) or conditions under which deletion is appropriate. The description lacks usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Create', implying mutation, but omits side effects (e.g., overwrite behavior), permissions requirements, or idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, but it's appropriately sized for a straightforward create action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and minimal description. Lacks information on return values, error cases, or what a network configuration entails. Sibling tools are not referenced.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (both params described), but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. 'org' and 'body' descriptions are generic. Baseline 3 applies due to high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('hosted compute network configuration') with scope ('for an organization'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete, get, update, and list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update). No prerequisites or context for appropriate usage are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only conveys that the tool removes restrictions, which implies mutation. No annotations exist, so the description should disclose effects like idempotency or behavior when no restrictions are set, but it does not. The verb 'remove' is minimally transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter removal tool with no output schema, the minimal description might be adequate. However, it lacks context on what interaction restrictions are and does not reference related sibling tools (get/set), which could help the agent understand the workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage with brief parameter descriptions ('owner', 'repo'). The description does not add any extra meaning or constraints beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but adds no value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'remove' and the resource 'interaction restrictions' for 'a repository', which matches the tool's name and distinguishes it from sibling tools that target orgs or users. However, it doesn't explain what interaction restrictions are, which could enhance clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like setting or getting restrictions, or when restrictions need to be removed. There is no mention of prerequisites or permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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, but only states 'List...issues' without mentioning pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or return format. The schema hints at pagination via parameters, but the description adds no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently states the core purpose. It is front-loaded and concise, though could be more informative without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 8 parameters (including pagination) and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits key context like response structure, default sorting, or the fact that results are paginated. The schema compensates partially, but the description fails to provide a complete picture for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it does not improve parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists issues assigned to the authenticated user, using specific verb and resource with a scope constraint, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like github_issues_list and github_issues_list_for_repo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_issues_list_for_repo or github_issues_list_for_org). It lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, yet the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or pagination behavior. The schema indicates pagination via 'per_page' and 'page' parameters, but the description fails to mention this, leaving the agent without explicit behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at four words, front-loading the action. While efficient, it may be too minimal, but it contains no redundant information and is well-structured for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description lacks context about return values, authentication requirements, or any limitations. The schema covers parameters, but without output schema or behavioral notes, the description does not fully inform the agent about the tool's usage and outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no value beyond the input schema, which already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 applies, as the description does not enhance understanding of the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List labels for an issue' clearly states the action (list), the resource (labels), and the scope (on an issue). It distinguishes this tool from its siblings like 'github_issues_list_labels_for_repo' and 'github_issues_list_labels_for_milestone', which operate on different scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_issues_list_labels_for_repo' or 'github_issues_list_labels_for_milestone'. It also omits any prerequisites, context, or exclusionary notes, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states that it lists migrations, with no mention of read-only behavior, potential pitfalls, pagination, or return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence. However, it could be expanded slightly to include usage context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of sibling migration list tools and no output schema, the description lacks sufficient context to fully inform the agent about scope and expected results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters like 'org', 'per_page', 'page', and 'exclude'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List organization migrations' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (organization migrations). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'github_migrations_list_for_authenticated_user' and 'github_migrations_list_repos_for_org' by explicitly specifying the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_for_authenticated_user). No prerequisites, exclusions, or context are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It only says 'Check', implying read-only, but does not explain what happens when membership is absent (e.g., returns 404, false, or error), nor any permissions or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (6 words) and front-loaded with the key action and resource. While it lacks detail, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, error states, or any implications of the check, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, but the schema descriptions are minimal ('org', 'username'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Check' and the resource 'organization membership for a user', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'github_orgs_check_public_membership_for_user'. The verb-resource pair is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_membership_for_user or check_public_membership). It does not specify prerequisites, context, or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or pagination. The description carries full burden but provides minimal insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is concise, though lacking additional valuable details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description does not explain what is returned (e.g., list of property definitions, format). The tool is simple but the description is barely adequate for an AI agent to fully understand its behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description for the 'org' parameter is merely 'org', adding no meaning. The tool description adds that it retrieves custom properties for an organization, which relates to the parameter but does not elaborate on format or constraints. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('all custom properties'), and the scope ('for an organization'), distinguishing it from the singular 'get_organization_definition' sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus its siblings like 'create_or_update_organization_definition' or 'get_organization_values'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description does not disclose destructive nature, reversibility, authorization requirements, or side effects (e.g., if issue type is linked to issues).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is extremely concise (5 words), efficiently conveying the action. Could add minor context without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, and description is minimal. Lacks details on return values, error conditions, or implications of deletion. Not complete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage for both parameters, but descriptions are just the parameter names. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema, meeting baseline but not exceeding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb ('Delete'), resource ('issue type'), and scope ('for an organization'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, update, and list issue types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided and description only states the basic function. Missing information on whether it is read-only, required permissions, pagination behavior (though schema mentions pagination), or any side effects. The description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative without being verbose. Structure is front-loaded and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with no output schema and no behavioral details, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about the return format (e.g., list of repository names/IDs), error handling, and any prerequisites. Missing context beyond the bare action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 due to high coverage. The description could clarify what 'selected repositories' means but is adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action 'List' and resource 'selected repositories for immutable releases enforcement'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_immutable_releases_settings which retrieves settings, not repositories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_immutable_releases_settings_repositories or enable/disable variants. The description provides no context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the operation is a 'Get'. It omits details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what occurs if the hook does not exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and minimal description, the tool definition is incomplete. It does not explain what a webhook configuration is, the expected response format, or how to obtain the hook_id.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% but the parameter descriptions are minimal ('org', 'hook_id'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get), resource (webhook configuration), and scope (for an organization). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'github_orgs_update_webhook_config_for_org' and 'github_orgs_get_webhook'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'github_orgs_get_webhook' or other config-related tools). It lacks context about prerequisites or use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or required permissions. The parameter schema includes pagination details, but the description omits any mention of behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. While it could include more details, it remains concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of blocked users, pagination info). For a list operation, expected output context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (org, per_page, page). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('users blocked by an organization'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like github_orgs_block_user and github_orgs_check_blocked_user by focusing on listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_orgs_check_blocked_user for individual user checks). It lacks context about typical use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'list organizations' with no disclosure of side effects, permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond parameter schema. For a read operation, minimal transparency is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is clear and to the point. No extraneous information; appropriately minimal for a simple list operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity, schema richness, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context but suffices for a straightforward list endpoint. Could mention return format or typical use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 2 well-documented parameters (per_page, page) with full descriptions. Description adds no additional information beyond what schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and the resource (organizations for the authenticated user). It differentiates from related tools like 'github_orgs_list' (public) and 'github_orgs_list_for_user' (specific user). However, it could be more specific about the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_orgs_list' or 'github_orgs_list_for_user'. The description does not mention prerequisites, authentication requirements, or context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral details such as whether the result is paginated, required permissions, or any side effects. The minimal description does not compensate for the missing annotation burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no superfluous words. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any mention of the output format or potential limitations, leaving some uncertainty for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'org'. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; the parameter description in the schema is tautological ('org'). Per rules, baseline 3 applies when schema coverage is high, but the tool description adds no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Get all organization roles for an organization', clearly identifying the verb (Get), resource (organization roles), and scope (all). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'github_orgs_get_org_role' which retrieves a single role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, common use cases, or when to prefer other tools for more specific role retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The minimal description does not reveal important traits: that this lists pending requests (not approved or denied), whether it requires admin permissions, pagination behavior beyond schema fields, or how results are ordered. The schema's filter parameters (owner, repository, permission, etc.) hint at functionality, but the description fails to explain their significance.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is efficient but could include a bit more context (e.g., 'pending requests') without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, many filters) and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention that this tool is part of a workflow to manage fine-grained PAT requests, that it requires organization admin or security manager permissions, or that the results can be used with review tools. An agent lacks crucial context to decide when to invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain the purpose of filters like 'owner', 'repository', or 'permission' or how they interact.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'List requests' and the resource 'to access organization resources with fine-grained personal access tokens'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'github_orgs_list_pat_grants' (which lists approved grants) and 'github_orgs_list_pat_grant_request_repositories' (which lists repositories for a specific request) by focusing on the requests themselves.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'github_orgs_list_pat_grants' or 'github_orgs_review_pat_grant_request'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical workflow context (e.g., 'Use this to view pending requests before reviewing them'), or conditions under which the tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action but does not disclose permissions needed, side effects (e.g., team loses all organization roles), reversibility, or impact on team members. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant information. It is concise, though arguably too brief. It earns a high score for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate with richer behavioral context. It does not explain the effects of removing all roles, required permissions, or any confirmation steps. Incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters with 100% description coverage, but the descriptions are minimal ('org', 'team_slug'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove all organization roles for a team' clearly states the action and target. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'github_orgs_revoke_org_role_team' (which revokes a single role) and 'github_orgs_revoke_all_org_roles_user' (which targets a user).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like assigning a role or revoking a single role. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'delete' implying mutation, but does not disclose irreversibility, required permissions, or potential side effects (e.g., cannot be restored). The description is insufficient for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, very concise. It is front-loaded but lacks structure. Could be improved with additional context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and minimal description, the tool is poorly documented. Users are left without information on return values, error conditions, or post-deletion behavior. Not sufficient for a delete operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but the parameter descriptions are just the names ('package_type', 'package_name') with no additional meaning. The description adds no value beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (package) for the authenticated user. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_package_for_org or delete_package_version_for_authenticated_user by specifying the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions mentioned. The description simply states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, define what constitutes a conflict, or mention any rate limits or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose within the character limit.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not clarify what 'conflicting packages' means or what the output will contain, but it provides the context of Docker migration.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters and 100% coverage trivially. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the tool name, but since there are no parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the verb ('Get list') and resource ('conflicting packages during Docker migration'), and the scope ('for authenticated-user') distinguishes it from sibling tools for organizations and other users. However, the term 'conflicting packages' could be more explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., the organization- or user-scoped versions). It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Restore' implies a mutation, but it does not mention permissions, irreversibility, or what 'restore' means (e.g., from soft-deleted state). The description is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no waste. It is very concise, though it could be slightly expanded to include behavioral context without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and a simple one-sentence description, the context is incomplete. The agent lacks information on prerequisites, return values, and the exact effect of 'restore'. More detail is needed for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but descriptions are tautological (e.g., 'org' for org). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Restore a package for an organization' clearly states the action (restore), resource (package), and scope (for an organization). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'restore_package_for_user' by specifying 'for an organization'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to restore a package vs. a package version, or when to use the authenticated user version). No prerequisites or context are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description only indicates a write operation. It fails to disclose potential side effects, permissions required, or error conditions like duplicate registries.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it may be too brief, lacking essential details about the body parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a creation tool with a nested body parameter and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits details about the request body structure and success response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but parameter descriptions are minimal ('org', 'Request body'). The description adds no extra meaning, earning the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a private registry for an organization'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like delete, get, list, and update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update or list. No prerequisites or context are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It implies destructiveness ('Delete') but does not explicitly state that the operation is irreversible, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. More transparency is needed for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 6 words, extremely concise and front-loaded. However, it could include additional critical details without becoming overly verbose. Still, for a simple delete operation, the structure is acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a potentially destructive operation like deleting a private registry, the description lacks crucial context: it does not mention irreversibility, required admin permissions, or any post-deletion consequences. With no output schema, agents have no information about return values. This is incomplete for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (both 'org' and 'secret_name' have descriptions), but those descriptions are just the parameter names, offering no additional meaning. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a private registry for an organization' clearly states the verb (Delete), resource (private registry), and scope (for an organization), effectively differentiating it from sibling tools like create, get, update, and list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Among a large set of sibling tools (including other private registry operations and many other tool categories), there is no context to help an agent decide between similar operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks any behavioral details beyond the action itself. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but fails to disclose side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or what happens to existing views. It is purely functional with no transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise, but could be improved by including critical information without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, no annotations, and minimal description, the tool is incomplete for an agent. Important context about what constitutes a view, required body fields, and return value are missing, making it difficult to use correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, giving each parameter a minimal description. However, the tool description adds no extra meaning—particularly for the 'body' parameter, which is described only as 'Request body (JSON object)' without specifying required fields like name or columns. With full coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a view for an organization-owned project, distinguishing it from the sibling 'github_projects_create_view_for_user' which targets user-owned projects. The verb 'Create' and resource 'view' are specific, making the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_projects_create_view_for_user' or other project tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., missing item), rate limits, or any side effects. Since annotations are absent, the description carries full burden but fails to address these.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no extra words. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, it could include a bit more structural detail without becoming verbose, but overall no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what an 'item' is, the return value structure, or any constraints (e.g., project must be user-owned). More context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with basic descriptions (e.g., 'username' for username). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format expectations or relationships between parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get an item for a user owned project' uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (item), and clearly indicates the scope (user owned project). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'github_projects_get_for_user' (which gets the project itself) and 'github_projects_get_org_item' (for org projects).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use on org projects or how it differs from fetching the project itself. No exclusionary or contextual hints are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination (though schema hints at it), output format, or that it is a read-only operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (4 words) and front-loaded. Minor grammatical issue ('pull requests' should be 'pull request') but retains clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so the description should at least hint at the return format or behavior. It does not, leaving the agent without a complete picture of what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List pull requests files' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (pull request files), differentiating it from sibling tools like github_pulls_list (which lists PRs) and github_pulls_list_commits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use github_pulls_list_files vs github_pulls_list or other list tools. No context on required parameters or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether reviewers are added or replaced, or any side effects. The description carries the full burden and fails to provide necessary transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise with a single sentence. It is front-loaded but lacks necessary details that could be added without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 parameters including a nested object and no output schema. The description is minimal and does not explain the body parameter or return value, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning or usage context for any parameter, including the nested body object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Request' and the resource 'reviewers for a pull request', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_requested_reviewers or remove_requested_reviewers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no context on prerequisites, effects, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only implies a destructive action but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with clear verb and object, efficient and front-loaded, though could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No explanation of return values, prerequisites, or how this tool fits among many similar reaction tools; leaves gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but descriptions are minimal (parameter names only); description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'issue comment reaction', distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_for_issue or delete_for_commit_comment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create or list reactions, nor prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'delete' with no details about required permissions, idempotency, irreversibility, or side effects. The agent lacks critical safety information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence of four words. It avoids fluff and clearly communicates the core action, though some might argue it is too minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (4 basic string parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a reaction ID is, how to obtain it, or confirm that deletion is irreversible. The agent would need to rely on external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but parameter descriptions are minimal (only repeating names like 'owner'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a release reaction' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (release reaction), distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on reactions for other entities like commit comments, issues, or pull request comments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as deleting reactions for other resource types. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema implies. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (6 words). However, it is not structured with any additional context; it is a single sentence that gets the point across but could benefit from slight elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description should explain the return format or behavior. It does not mention that a list of reaction objects is returned, nor does it describe pagination or filtering capabilities. Incomplete for a list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on parameter usage (e.g., how to filter by content). Thus, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List reactions for a pull request review comment' clearly states the action (list) and the specific resource (reactions for a PR review comment), making it distinguishable from sibling tools like create/delete reactions or list reactions for other resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other list reactions tools for different comment types). The description does not include when-not-to-use or alternative tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description merely restates the tool name. It does not explain whether the operation is safe, idempotent, or what errors may occur. The verb 'Check' implies read-only, but the description does not confirm this or add any behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single 8-word sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is overly sparse and could include more detail without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description does not specify the return value (e.g., boolean, status), which is critical for an agent to interpret results. No output schema exists, so the description should cover this. Additionally, it does not mention that the check is specific to Dependabot security updates, leaving ambiguity about scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but parameter descriptions are trivial ('owner', 'repo'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Check' and clearly identifies the resource ('Dependabot security updates for a repository'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'enable' and 'disable' variants.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not indicate that this is a read-only operation or direct users to sibling tools for enabling/disabling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a deploy key' without describing side effects (e.g., adding the key to the repository), authentication requirements, idempotency, or limitations. This is minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the function. It is well-structured and front-loaded, but lacks supporting details that would make it more helpful. Still, it earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool involves three parameters including a nested body object with no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the body should contain (e.g., key, title, read_only), the scope (repo-specific), or any return value. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the schema descriptions are basic ('owner', 'repo', 'Request body (JSON object)'), and the tool description adds no further meaning. The body parameter's required fields (e.g., 'key', 'title') are not hinted at, so the description provides minimal added value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a deploy key'). Among sibling tools like github_repos_get_deploy_key, github_repos_list_deploy_keys, and github_repos_delete_deploy_key, this tool is distinct and its purpose is immediately understood.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites, required permissions, or scenarios where other deploy key tools (e.g., listing or deleting) would be more appropriate. The description lacks any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose side effects, permissions, and behavior. It only says 'create' without mentioning whether it requires admin access, if it overrides existing rules, or any other behavioral implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no redundant words. Efficiently communicates the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing explanation of what a custom deployment protection rule is, how to structure the body, required fields, and expected response. For a tool with a complex nested parameter and no output schema, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but descriptions are trivial (parameter names). The critical 'body' parameter expects a nested JSON object, but its structure is unexplained. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (create), the resource (custom deployment protection rule), and the scope (on an environment). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get/disable/list operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_deployment_branch_policy). No mention of prerequisites or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as idempotence, required permissions, side effects, or whether it modifies repository settings. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that is front-loaded and efficient. However, it is somewhat terse and could include more context without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what happens after enabling, prerequisites, or any other important context. A more complete description would improve usability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage, but parameter descriptions are minimal (just 'owner' and 'repo'). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Enable Dependabot security updates' clearly states the action (enable) and the resource (Dependabot security updates on a repository). It distinguishes from sibling tools like disable and check, which are similarly named.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to enable vs. disable, or prerequisites). The description does not mention any context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. However, it only states the basic operation and does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it returns a list, pagination, required permissions, or dependencies on branch protection settings.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, very concise and front-loaded. No wasted words, but it could be more informative while remaining concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description lacks important context about what is returned (e.g., list of app objects), relationship to branch protection, and any prerequisites. Incomplete for full agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description (though just the name). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond these. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (apps with access to protected branch). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_teams_with_access and get_users_with_access.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about prerequisites, when not to use it, or what differentiates it from similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, error handling, or idempotency. The description relies on the tool's name alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (3 words) and front-loaded with the key action. It is concise, though arguably too minimal to provide full clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description is incomplete. It does not mention required permissions, return value, or any constraints. A get operation would benefit from stating it retrieves a single key by ID.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage but only provides parameter names as descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a deploy key' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list, create, or delete deploy keys.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_deploy_keys or create_deploy_key. The description lacks context about prerequisites or use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden but only states 'Get all organization repository rulesets'. Missing details on pagination, filtering, permissions, rate limits, or scope of results. Does not mention that pagination parameters exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity. However, it lacks any structural elements like descriptions of parameters or behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of parameters beyond schema, nor does it describe the return value structure. For a list tool with filtering, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions, so the description does not need to add parameter details. However, it adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, meeting baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get all organization repository rulesets', specifying verb ('Get') and resource ('organization repository rulesets'). The word 'all' distinguishes it from siblings like github_repos_get_org_ruleset (singular) and other ruleset management tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_repos_get_org_ruleset for a single ruleset or other ruleset operations. Agent must infer from tool names without explicit instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., whether it returns an error if no protection exists) or any side effects. It only states that it 'gets' data, implying read-only but lacking detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (three parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but could be improved by explaining the concept of 'pull request review protection' or the expected response format. It does not fully leverage the opportunity to add context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but parameter descriptions are merely the parameter names (e.g., 'owner'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get pull request review protection' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action. However, it does not distinguish from similar tools like 'github_repos_get_branch_protection', which might be confused with this one.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_branch_protection), nor are prerequisites mentioned. The agent has no context about required branch protection settings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states only the basic action, with no disclosure of behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part is essential to convey the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what the tool returns (e.g., list of branch objects) and how the 'HEAD commit' filter works. The current description is too brief to be fully informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the schema descriptions are minimal (just parameter names). The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameters (owner, repo, commit_sha), so it fails to compensate for the sparse schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List branches for HEAD commit' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (branches) with a specific qualifier (for HEAD commit), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_branches which list all branches for a repo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_branches for all branches) or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose read-only nature, error handling (e.g., if environment not found), rate limits, or pagination details beyond what the schema's parameter descriptions already provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded, no filler. However, it could include more useful information without being verbose, so not a perfect 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of integration objects or names). For a list tool in a complex domain, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; the schema already describes 'owner', 'repo', 'environment_name', 'page', and 'per_page'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'custom deployment rule integrations' scoped to 'an environment'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_custom_deployment_protection_rule' or 'list_deployments'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or comparisons to similar list tools among the many siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'rename a branch,' which implies mutation but does not clarify side effects, such as whether it triggers webhooks, affects protected branches, or if the old name becomes immediately unavailable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (three words) and front-loads the essential action. Every word is meaningful, but it could afford to add a bit more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and the complexity of the 'body' parameter, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. It does not explain the return value, required body fields, or error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, but parameter descriptions are minimal (only parameter names). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The 'body' parameter is a nested object with no defined properties, leaving its required fields unclear for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Rename a branch' clearly states the specific verb (rename) and resource (branch). The tool name and description together make the purpose unambiguous, and given the extensive sibling list, the name itself differentiates it from other branch-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like branch protection updates or simple branch creation. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., write permissions, branch existence) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update', omitting whether the update is partial or full, what permissions are needed, or if it is destructive. The description does not add value beyond the minimal verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is efficient, though it could be slightly expanded to include more context without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the update does, what fields can be changed, or what the response contains. The body parameter description is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning; the body parameter remains vague ('Request body (JSON object)'). A baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'deployment branch policy', making the action unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_deployment_branch_policy, delete_deployment_branch_policy). There is no mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'update information' without detailing what specific fields can be changed, side effects, or authorization requirements. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it sacrifices important details for brevity. Still, it is not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, the description should explain what the update modifies and any return value. It does not, leaving the agent underinformed about the tool's full behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's minimal descriptions (e.g., 'Request body (JSON object)'). It could have hinted at the expected body structure (like source branch or HTTPS settings).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'information about a GitHub Pages site', which is distinct from sibling tools like create_pages_site or get_pages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites mentioned (e.g., that a pages site must exist beforehand).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'update', implying mutation, but does not disclose side effects, required authentication, or any other behavioral traits. The description lacks transparency beyond the basic verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, making it concise. However, it could be more informative without being verbose. It earns a 4 for being efficient but not maximally helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what updating an invitation entails, what the request body should contain, or the expected result. More context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, but descriptions are minimal (just parameter names). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; for example, 'body' is described as 'Request body (JSON object)' without specifying permissible fields. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a repository invitation' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (repository invitation). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'github_repos_delete_invitation' and 'github_repos_list_invitations' by specifying 'update' instead of 'delete' or 'list'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to update vs delete an invitation). It does not mention any context such as required permissions or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral details like whether the update is partial or full, destructive effects, or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence. It is front-loaded but perhaps too terse, though it still serves the basic purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, and the description does not explain return values or behavior. It is incomplete for a tool with nested parameters and no output documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage but parameter descriptions are minimal (just names). The description does not add semantic meaning beyond what is already in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Update' and the resource 'organization repository ruleset', which is distinct from sibling tools like create, delete, or get operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites (existing ruleset) or permissions. The description lacks context for usage decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the action ('Update'), but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens to existing webhook settings. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and the complex 'body' parameter, the description does not explain return values, errors, or how to properly construct the request body. An agent would lack sufficient context to invoke this tool correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (each parameter has a description), but those descriptions are minimal (just property names). The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter format or expected values, e.g., what fields the 'body' JSON object should contain. Baseline 3 due to high coverage, but no added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a repository webhook' uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('repository webhook'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like github_repos_create_webhook, github_repos_get_webhook, and github_repos_delete_webhook.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_webhook or update_webhook_config_for_repo). The description lacks any contextual hints, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The agent lacks context on what to expect beyond the minimal description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it could include additional useful context without becoming verbose, earning a 4 for good but not perfect conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is still insufficient. It does not explain the return value, pagination, or any nuances about the alert data, leaving the agent with gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Get' and the resource 'secret scanning alert'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like list or update alerts, providing a clear purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list alerts, update alert). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits such as what data is returned, pagination, rate limits, or permission requirements. This is insufficient for a tool that retrieves history data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence of 8 words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (2 required params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on the nature of the scan history (e.g., what fields are returned, time range), which would help an agent use the tool correctly. More context would be beneficial but is not critical for basic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage (both 'owner' and 'repo' have descriptions), but those descriptions are trivial (just the parameter names). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. According to the guidelines, a baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage, even though the schema descriptions are minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'secret scanning scan history for a repository', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling secret scanning tools like 'get_alert' (single alert) and 'list_alerts_for_repo' (list alerts). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description lacks information about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_alerts_for_repo' or 'get_alert'. No exclusions or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'temporary private fork' but does not explain what 'temporary' entails (e.g., deletion after advisory closure), auth requirements, or side effects. This is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness. Still, it earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three parameters and no output schema, the description lacks context about how the temporary fork relates to security advisories, what happens after creation, and prerequisites. Incomplete for a meaningful tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but parameter descriptions are just names (owner, repo, ghsa_id). The description adds no extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema covers the basic structure but lacks deeper semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a temporary private fork' uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('temporary private fork'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool 'github_repos_create_fork' which creates a regular fork. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_repos_create_fork'. The description does not mention the context of security advisories or any conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Remove' without disclosing if the operation is destructive, requires authentication or specific permissions, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly more context could be added without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of a non-legacy sibling tool, the description fails to explain why one would use this legacy version. It also omits information about required permissions, return values, or error conditions, leaving the agent underinformed for decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (each parameter has a description, though just the parameter name). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Remove' and the resource 'a repository from a team', with a specific verb and resource. The '(Legacy)' suffix distinguishes it from the non-legacy counterpart, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this legacy tool versus the non-legacy alternative, nor does it mention any prerequisites, permissions, or scenarios. An agent has no basis to choose this over related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states it deletes, but lacks details on consequences, success/failure behavior, permissions, or reversibility. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise, one phrase with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded and efficient, but could benefit from a bit more context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain the deletion's scope, side effects, or how to find the attestation_id. Incomplete for a deletion tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but schema descriptions are just parameter names. Description adds context that attestation_id is the ID. However, it doesn't clarify what username refers to or the format of attestation_id. Partially compensates for poor schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Delete attestations by ID' clearly states the verb (Delete), resource (attestations), and identifier (by ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_attestations_bulk' and 'delete_attestations_by_subject_digest'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention that it deletes a single attestation by its ID, or provide context about prerequisites or how to obtain the ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description merely restates the name without disclosing destructive nature, permissions, rate limits, or side effects. It fails to add behavioral context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward deletion operation, though it could benefit from additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no annotations. The description does not explain the scope (user-specific attestations), return value, or confirmation. For a deletion tool, this lacks critical context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds 'by subject digest' which is already obvious from the name. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description provides no extra meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete attestations by subject digest' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (attestations) with specific criterion (subject digest). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_attestations_by_id' and 'delete_attestations_bulk'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include 'delete_attestations_by_id' and 'delete_attestations_bulk', but the description offers no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'list users blocked', omitting that it supports pagination (via per_page and page parameters), what happens if no users are blocked, or any rate limit information. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more informative while remaining concise, e.g., mentioning pagination or authentication requirement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain the return format, pagination behavior, or authentication context, making it insufficient for a complete understanding of the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 100% with both parameters (per_page, page) already described in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameters, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'users blocked by the authenticated user', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'github_users_block' or 'github_users_check_blocked'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_users_check_blocked' for checking a single user or 'github_users_block' for blocking. There is no mention of context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'List', missing details like auth requirements, read-only nature, or potential errors. The description adds no value beyond a basic verb-noun phrase.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) with no wasteful content. However, it lacks structure and could benefit from a brief note on output or usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the response contains (e.g., list of keys with IDs, expiration, etc.) or any pagination details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'username', 'per_page', and 'page'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('GPG keys for a user'). The tool name and required 'username' parameter make it distinct from similar tools like 'list_gpg_keys_for_authenticated_user'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools (e.g., for authenticated user vs. another user). No mention of prerequisites, pagination, or usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action without mentioning that the request requires authentication, is read-only, or what happens if no keys exist. For a tool with zero annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that is appropriately concise. It uses a verb-noun structure and is front-loaded. However, it could include more useful information without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain what is returned (e.g., list of key objects with fields like id, key, title). It does not, leaving the agent without crucial context about the response format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters (per_page and page) are fully described in the input schema with detailed documentation links. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'public SSH keys', and the scope 'for the authenticated user'. It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like 'github_users_list_public_keys_for_user' which lists keys for a specific user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it only returns the current user's keys or exclude other listing endpoints. The name implies the use, but the description should offer more context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description only states the action ('Add') but does not disclose behavioral traits like destructiveness, idempotency, or required permissions. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple mutation with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks context on what a 'group' is and what the response looks like. It does not mention potential errors or prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but parameter descriptions are trivial (just the parameter name). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what 'runner_group_id' or 'runner_id' represent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add a self-hosted runner to a group for an organization' clearly states the action (Add), resource (self-hosted runner), target (group), and scope (organization). It distinguishes from siblings like github_actions_add_repo_access_to_self_hosted_runner_group_in_org.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use information. The description is minimal and does not help the agent decide between this and similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It hints at destructiveness but does not explicitly state irreversibility, permission requirements, or idempotency. The behavioral context is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, complete sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description lacks details on return values, error conditions, and permissions. It is too brief for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions are adequate. The description adds little beyond confirming the key parameter is used for caching identification. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Delete), resource (GitHub Actions caches), scope (for a repository), and method (using a cache key). It differentiates from sibling 'delete_by_id' by specifying key-based deletion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_by_id or other cache management tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, error handling, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only implies a read operation via 'Get' but does not disclose authentication requirements, idempotency, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, no superfluous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks details on what the returned settings include. No output schema, and the description does not compensate by listing the settings fields or structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond the trivial schema descriptions ('owner', 'repo').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it retrieves artifact and log retention settings for a repository. The verb 'Get' and resource 'artifact and log retention settings' are specific, and 'for a repository' distinguishes it from the organization-level sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., the organization-level variant). No context or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action (get) but does not describe side effects, permissions, rate limits, or the nature of the returned data. The agent lacks behavioral context beyond the operation name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose without unnecessary words. Properly front-loaded with the verb and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description should at least indicate what the template contains or its structure. It also fails to contextualize this repo-level tool versus the org-level counterpart, leaving the agent with incomplete understanding of its scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but each parameter's description is minimal ('owner', 'repo'). The tool description adds no additional meaning or constraints. Baseline 3 applies due to full coverage, but no compensation is offered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (customization template for an OIDC subject claim for a repository). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like the set version, and the verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., the org-level template tool 'github_oidc_get_oidc_custom_sub_template_for_org'). It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided; the description does not disclose that this is a read-only operation or describe any side effects, rate limits, or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and direct.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the permissions object). For a getter tool, this leaves the agent without crucial return value information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter (org) described as 'org'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'GitHub Actions permissions' scoped to 'organization', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_github_actions_permissions_repository and set_ versions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_github_actions_permissions_repository, get_allowed_actions_organization). No prerequisites or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not indicate whether this operation is read-only (implied), what permissions are needed, or what the response format looks like. Minimal transparency beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no extraneous information. Efficiently communicates the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks output schema, no annotations, and no elaboration on the importance of pending deployments in workflow runs. Given the complexity of GitHub Actions and many sibling tools, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (all 3 parameters described), but the parameter descriptions are minimal (just 'owner', 'repo', 'run_id'). The tool description adds no additional meaning to these parameters, so baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'get', the resource 'pending deployments', and the context 'for a workflow run'. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like 'github_actions_review_pending_deployments_for_run', which is about reviewing, not just fetching.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'github_actions_get_reviews_for_run'). Lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where this should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, or pagination behavior. It only states the action, missing important details for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal and does not explain the return format, pagination implications, required permissions, or relationship to sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's minimal parameter descriptions (e.g., 'org', 'runner_group_id').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List) and the resource (repository access to a self-hosted runner group in an organization), distinguishing it from sibling tools that add, remove, or set repo access.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add, remove, or set repo access. The description lacks context for proper tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, mention pagination, auth requirements, or rate limits. The minimal description lacks necessary behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Efficient and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists and no annotations are provided. The description is too minimal; it does not state what the response contains, that results are paginated, or any other behavioral details expected for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not describe parameters or their usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'selected repositories for an organization variable'. It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like list_selected_repos_for_org_secret.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage when needing to see selected repos for an org variable, but no exclusions or comparisons are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Remove' without details on side effects, idempotency, or error cases (e.g., if label does not exist).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence of 11 words, concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it may be overly minimal given the lack of other context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic action adequately for a simple removal tool, but with no output schema or annotations, more context (e.g., idempotency, required permissions) would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but parameter descriptions are just the parameter names (e.g., 'owner'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action 'Remove', the object 'custom label', and the scope 'from a self-hosted runner for a repository'. It precisely distinguishes from sibling tools like the org-level variant.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., remove_all_custom_labels, org-level variant). No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks behavioral details beyond the action. It does not disclose that 'Set' replaces the existing access list, nor does it mention any destructive aspects, rate limits, or authorization requirements. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails to provide sufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that clearly communicates the purpose without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no output schema, few parameters), the description is adequate but fails to clarify the behavioral implications of 'Set' versus other related tools. Missing context for when to use this specific tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'repository access for a self-hosted runner group in an organization'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_repo_access' and 'remove_repo_access' that modify the list incrementally.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the alternatives (e.g., 'add' or 'remove' access). The description does not clarify that this tool replaces the entire list of repositories, while siblings modify it incrementally.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Update' without any behavioral context. It does not disclose what happens if the variable doesn't exist, required permissions, or whether the update is partial or full replacement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of updating a repository variable (e.g., possible fields in the body, permissions, error handling), the description is too minimal. No output schema or annotations exist to supplement, and sibling tools are numerous but not referenced for guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions, but they are minimal. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The 'body' parameter is described as 'Request body (JSON object)' without details on expected fields (e.g., value, visibility), so the agent lacks clarity on what to include.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Update' and the resource 'repository variable'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and list, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_repo_variable or get_repo_variable). Lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing the variable name or the expected format of the body.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. Yet it only states the basic function without disclosing behavioral traits like default filtering (unread only), pagination, or authentication requirements. The schema hints at parameters but the description adds no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It achieves clarity in minimal space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It omits default behavior, scope, and any details about the return format. Users are left to infer from the schema and name.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'notifications for the authenticated user'. The name further distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'github_activity_list_repo_notifications_for_authenticated_user' which focuses on repo-specific notifications.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., repo-specific notifications, marking as read). No context on prerequisites or scenarios is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the action itself. It fails to mention effects, authentication requirements, or response expectations, leaving the agent with insufficient information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), which is appropriate for a simple tool but lacks structure. It omits important behavioral details that could be added without significant verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no output schema and one parameter, the description should explain what 'mark as read' means and any prerequisites. It is incomplete, leaving the agent without enough context to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter 'thread_id', but both schema and description merely repeat the parameter name. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning, resulting in baseline adequacy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Mark a thread as read' clearly states the action (mark) and resource (thread). It distinguishes from siblings like 'mark_thread_as_done' and 'mark_notifications_as_read', making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the name implies it is for individual threads. Given siblings exist, more explicit usage context would help, but the description is minimally adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'unstar' without disclosing behavioral traits such as idempotency, authentication requirements, side effects (e.g., whether it throws an error if already unstarred), or rate limits. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no waste. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks information about return values (e.g., success response, error cases). It covers the basic action but not the full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (owner and repo are described in the schema), so the description does not need to add much. It implicitly uses the parameters but does not add extra meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'unstar' and the resource 'repository for the authenticated user'. It is specific and distinguishes clearly from sibling tools like 'github_activity_star_repo_for_authenticated_user' (star) and 'github_activity_list_repos_starred_by_authenticated_user' (list starred).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., star vs unstar). It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when this action is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond being a get operation. It fails to mention authentication requirements, response format, or potential side effects, leaving the agent uninformed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 8 words, with no extraneous information. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward get operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter, but the description lacks context about what an organization installation is and what the response contains. Without an output schema, the agent may need more information to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single parameter 'org' with a tautological description 'org'. The tool description adds no further meaning, such as clarifying that 'org' is the GitHub organization name or slug. Despite high schema coverage, the description does not enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'organization installation for the authenticated app', distinguishing it from related tools like github_apps_get_repo_installation and github_apps_get_user_installation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_apps_get_installation or github_apps_get_repo_installation. With many sibling tools, explicit context is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action, omitting important details like side effects (read-only nature), authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The minimal description leaves the agent with significant unknowns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous details. It is efficient and front-loaded, though it sacrifices behavioral completeness for brevity. Still, it earns a high score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (list endpoint, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It doesn't explain what 'installation requests' are or the response structure, but for a straightforward GitHub API tool, it may suffice for agents with domain knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for its two parameters (per_page, page), with detailed explanations of pagination. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List installation requests for the authenticated app' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('installation requests for the authenticated app'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_installations' or 'list_installation_repos'. It is not a tautology and provides a precise action and scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_apps_list_installations, github_apps_list_installation_repos_for_authenticated_user). It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, making it hard for an agent to select the correct tool without deeper knowledge.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action without indicating side effects (e.g., whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits). The behavior is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 7 words, efficiently communicating the core purpose. No unnecessary words or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (list with pagination), the description is mostly complete. It could be improved by mentioning that it requires app installation authentication or that it returns repositories the app installation can access. Without an output schema, the description should at least hint at the return format, but the standard list behavior is understood.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes the pagination parameters (per_page, page) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning or context about these parameters; it simply restates the action. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the semantic load.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'repositories accessible to the app installation'. However, it does not specify which app installation (e.g., the currently authenticated GitHub App installation), leaving some ambiguity. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'github_apps_list_installation_repos_for_authenticated_user' but could be more precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over siblings like 'github_apps_list_installation_repos_for_authenticated_user' or 'github_apps_list_installations'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., requiring an app installation token) or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Remove' implying mutation but lacks details on reversibility, permissions required, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It is not verbose, but could include slightly more context without being wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks an explanation of what an 'app installation' is, which might be unclear to an AI agent without prior knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but parameter descriptions merely echo the parameter names. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and the resource ('repository from an app installation'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'github_apps_add_repo_to_installation_for_authenticated_user' which performs the reverse operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or situations where it should not be used. The description only states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action but does not disclose permissions required, side effects, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits beyond the obvious mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 5 words, extremely concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters including a nested object and no output schema, the description lacks important context such as what the request body should contain, what the response will be, or any constraints. It is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct the request without additional knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both 'org' and 'body' have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it does not explain what the 'body' should contain or provide any context beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create a campaign for an organization', which is a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('campaign') scoped to an organization. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete, get, list, and update campaigns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. It simply states the action without any 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Delete a campaign' without disclosing whether deletion is permanent, what permissions are required, or any side effects. For a mutation operation, more behavioral context is expected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it quick to parse. Every word is essential.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it could mention that the action is permanent or require specific permissions, which would improve completeness. Given the low complexity, a 3 is reasonable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but the parameter descriptions are tautological ('org', 'campaign_number'), adding no meaning beyond the parameter names. The tool description does not elaborate on these parameters, so the agent gains no additional insight into what values are valid or how they are used.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a campaign for an organization'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_campaign, update_campaign, list_org_campaigns, and get_campaign_summary. The verb+resource pattern is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no conditions for safe usage, and no mention of when not to use it. It simply states what it does without any contextual advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Get the status,' implying a read-only operation but lacking details on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or any behavioral traits that go beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no extraneous information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not indicate what the response contains (e.g., status details, fields). For a 'get' operation, more context on the returned data is needed for an agent to use the result correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions (owner, repo, alert_number), but these descriptions are minimal (just the parameter names). The tool description adds no further meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action (Get) and the resource (status of an autofix for a code scanning alert), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_autofix and commit_autofix.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_autofix, commit_autofix). The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. The description does not mention pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or return structure. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no superfluous words. Highly concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no annotations, and a very brief description. Lacks details on what is returned, any filters, or typical response size. Incomplete for a listing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage with descriptions ('owner', 'repo'), but these are trivial. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'CodeQL databases for a repository'. It is specific and actionable, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like get or delete, which limits clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_codeql_database). Usage is implied: to list all databases for a repository, but no exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'attach' without explaining what that entails (e.g., overwrites existing attachments, required permissions, side effects).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler words, achieving maximum conciseness while still conveying the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool modifies security configurations and has no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on the effect, required permissions, and behavior (e.g., idempotency).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are described. However, the description adds no extra meaning beyond schema; 'body' is vaguely described as 'Request body (JSON object)'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('attach') and the resource ('enterprise configuration to repositories'), differentiating it from related tools like 'attach_configuration' which likely handles org-level configurations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'detach_configuration' or 'attach_configuration'. The description does not specify prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description lacks behavioral details. It does not mention that this returns a list, supports pagination (though schema hints at it), or any side effects. The description adds no value beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, only one sentence. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool, but could include more useful information without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, and the description does not clarify that the result is a list of configurations. It omits pagination behavior and return type. For a simple list operation, the description is somewhat incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameters beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Get' and the resource 'code security configurations for an organization'. It is specific and distinguishes from siblings that target other scopes like enterprise or repository.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as getting configurations for a repository or enterprise. No when-not or usage context is mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether setting a default overrides an existing default, if the action is reversible, or if it affects all repositories in the organization. The description lacks necessary context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that communicates the core functionality without fluff. It earns its place, though it could be slightly expanded to cover usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation, the description provides minimal context. It explains what the tool does but lacks information on the effect of setting a configuration as default, the relationship to other configurations, or any side effects. It is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'org', 'configuration_id', 'Request body'), and the tool description does not add any additional meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the description does not compensate for the sparse parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'a code security configuration as a default for an organization'. It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like attach, detach, and create_configuration by specifying the 'as default' action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'attach_configuration' or 'update_configuration'. There is no mention of prerequisites, required permissions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description is solely responsible for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention authorization requirements, side effects on the codespace, rate limits, or expected return values, leaving critical gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 5 words, which is concise but too brief to be informative. It could be expanded with additional context without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description fails to provide essential context such as return value, required permissions, or disambiguation from many sibling codespace tools. The description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond the schema's minimal descriptions (e.g., 'codespace_name' is just a string). The 'body' parameter is documented only as 'Request body (JSON object)' without clarifying expected properties.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a repository from an unpublished codespace' clearly states the action (create repository) and the resource (unpublished codespace), distinguishing it from other codespace operations like create, delete, start, or stop.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have an unpublished codespace and want to persist it as a repository, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating a new codespace or deleting one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Add users' implying a write/mutation operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, idempotency, or whether it overwrites or appends to existing access. The transparency is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of sibling tools for setting and deleting access, the description fails to clarify that this tool is incremental (adds to existing list). The nested 'body' parameter lacks specification, and there is no output schema. The description is incomplete for practical use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters documented), giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; 'org' is straightforward, and 'body' is described as 'Request body (JSON object)' which is vague. No extra guidance on the structure of the body is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add users to Codespaces access for an organization' uses a specific verb ('Add') and clearly identifies the resource ('users to Codespaces access') and scope ('for an organization'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'github_codespaces_set_codespaces_access' (which sets the list) and 'github_codespaces_delete_codespaces_access_users' (which removes users).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set vs add) or any prerequisites (e.g., permissions needed). The description only implies usage through the action word 'Add', but lacks explicit context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It only says 'stop', which is non-destructive but lacks details on side effects, restartability, or required permissions, leaving the agent without sufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation, though it could include additional context without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but descriptions are only parameter names. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters beyond their names, so it does not help in understanding parameter types, constraints, or relationships.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stop a codespace for an organization user' clearly identifies the action (stop) and the resource (codespace for an organization user), which distinguishes it from similar tools like 'github_codespaces_stop_for_authenticated_user' that targets the authenticated user's codespace.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for org-level users but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'stop_for_authenticated_user') or mention preconditions like required admin permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states a mutation action ('Add') without detailing side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if teams are already assigned. Insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key information. Every word earns its place, with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits any mention of return values, success indicators, or behavioral context that would help an agent understand the full implications of calling this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't explain the body structure or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add teams to the Copilot subscription for an organization' clearly states the action (add), the resource (teams to Copilot subscription), and the scope (organization). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like add_copilot_seats_for_users and cancel_copilot_seat_assignment_for_teams.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no limitations, and no context on when not to use it. It lacks any usage direction for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get ... metrics' without disclosing what metrics are included (e.g., active users, seat details), whether pagination exists, or any rate limits. For a retrieval tool, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence conveying the essential purpose without any verbose or redundant elements. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps. It doesn't explain what 'usage metrics' contains, how results are structured, or how it differs from similar tools (e.g., enterprise vs org, per-user vs aggregated). Given the large number of sibling tools, more detail is needed for proper selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters described). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. 'org' parameter description is a tautology ('org'), and 'day' is standard. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'Copilot organization users usage metrics', and the time scope 'for a specific day'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'github_copilot_copilot_organization_users_usage_metrics' (without one_day) and 'github_copilot_copilot_organization_one_day_usage_metrics' (aggregated org, not per-user).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus the many sibling Copilot tools (e.g., per-user daily vs aggregated daily, or enterprise-level metrics). An agent would need to infer context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required authentication scopes, rate limits, or what happens if the user does not have a seat. The tool's behavior is not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without extra information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what seat details are returned, such as user, organization, seat assignment date, or whether the user is a subscriber. Missing information could lead to incorrect tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but the descriptions are just parameter names ('org', 'username'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema coverage is high but lacks semantic detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves Copilot seat assignment details for a specific user. The verb 'Get' and resource 'seat details' are specific, and the tool name is descriptive, distinguishing it from other Copilot tools like add_copilot_seats or list_copilot_seats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_copilot_seats (for bulk listing) or add/cancel seats. There are no instructions on prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states that it lists repositories, but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, if it requires specific permissions, or any side effects. The minimal description lacks transparency about behavior beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous information, earning its place efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of repository names or objects). It also does not mention that the results are paginated, despite the per_page and page parameters being present. The description is too minimal to be complete for a tool with pagination and no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. For example, 'org' is described only as 'org' in the schema, but the tool description could clarify that it is the organization name. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents each parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'repositories enabled for Copilot coding agent in an organization'. It succinctly describes the action and scope, and it distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., enable/disable/set tools) by implying a read-only listing operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the enable, disable, or set tools for Copilot coding agent. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the core function without mentioning pagination behavior, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with empty results. The schema hints at pagination via page/per_page, but the description does not clarify that this is a paginated list or that results might be limited.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently communicates the tool's core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, pagination details, or common use cases. It does not, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the parameter names alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'List all' and does not explain how each parameter affects results (e.g., page and per_page for pagination). The schema already documents these details adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all Copilot seat assignments for an organization, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add, cancel, or get details, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools in the same namespace (e.g., add, cancel, get details), the description should offer context on when listing is appropriate but does not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description only says 'Lists' but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or error handling. The pagination parameters are in the schema but the description does not confirm results are paginated or explain the default page size.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no fluff. It is concise and front-loaded. Could potentially add more useful information without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of a list tool, the description combined with schema provides adequate context. However, it does not explicitly mention pagination behavior or output format. With no output schema, a brief note on return structure would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the 'org' parameter description is a tautology ('org'), and the tool description adds no extra meaning. The page/per_page descriptions are adequate but the tool description does not compensate for the weak org description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Lists), the resource (repositories Dependabot can access), and the scope (in an organization). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_dependabot_update_repository_access_for_org which modify access.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other Dependabot access tools. The description does not mention that this is a read-only operation or provide context about alternatives like github_dependabot_set_repository_access_default_level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, that authentication may be required, or what the response contains. The description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure and does not meet it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At three words, the description is extremely concise and front-loaded. While it lacks structure, the brevity is appropriate for a simple get operation. Every word is necessary, but there is room to add context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is just adequate. It covers the core purpose but omits context like return value or relationship to similar tools. A more complete description would mention that it returns the full gist object for the given ID.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description provides no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'gist_id' parameter; it does not explain the format or purpose of the parameter. However, the schema already documents it adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a gist' is a clear verb+resource combination that directly states the tool's action. It distinguishes well from siblings like github_gists_list (list all) and github_gists_get_revision (get revision).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_gists_list or github_gists_get_revision. The description doesn't mention typical use cases or scenarios, leaving the agent to infer based on name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'List gist forks' without mentioning pagination, rate limits, or that it requires a gist_id. The schema provides pagination params but description adds no value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 required param, pagination), the description omits critical context like return format, authentication needs, or that results are paginated. No output schema compensates, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters documented). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates the action. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List gist forks' uses a specific verb (List) and resource (gist forks), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like github_gists_list or github_gists_fork.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_gists_list, github_gists_list_for_user). No context about prerequisites or scenarios is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action and does not mention pagination (despite per_page/page parameters), read-only nature, authentication requirements, or output format. This omission limits the agent's ability to correctly invoke and interpret results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no extraneous words. It conveys the core purpose without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has pagination parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what the output contains (e.g., list of issue numbers or full issue objects), how pagination works, or any rate limiting considerations. The agent would need to infer behavior from schema alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's minimal parameter descriptions (e.g., 'owner' described as 'owner'). It does not explain the relationship between parameters or the concept of 'dependencies' in this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List dependencies an issue is blocked by' clearly states the action (list) and resource (dependencies blocked by an issue). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'github_issues_list_dependencies_blocking', which lists dependencies that an issue blocks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or contrast with other issue-related tools like list_dependencies_blocking. The sibling tool names imply differentiation, but the description itself lacks explicit usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It simply says 'remove' with no mention of destructiveness, permissions, side effects, or reversibility. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the action verb.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., which issue is blocking vs blocked), nor what happens upon success. Leaves the agent with unanswered questions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but parameter descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'owner', 'repo'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, e.g., it does not clarify the roles of issue_number vs issue_id. Baseline 3 per rules for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove dependency') and the resource ('an issue is blocked by'), indicating it removes a dependency that blocks an issue. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_blocked_by_dependency and list_dependencies_blocked_by.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like adding or listing dependencies. Implied context from siblings, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose that the tool replaces the body content, any permission requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The minimal description leaves the agent guessing about behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficiently front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description should explain what the body parameter expects (e.g., fields, structure) and what the response indicates. It does neither, leaving the agent uninformed about input constraints or expected results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions, but they are minimal (property names only). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, such as what 'body' should contain or how to format it. Baseline is 3 due to schema coverage, but no extra value from description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'an issue comment'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_comment, delete_comment, and list_comments by specifying the action on an existing comment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create or list comments). No prerequisites or context for when an update is appropriate, such as requiring an existing comment_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it lists repositories. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation. The schema includes per_page/page but the description omits any behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is front-loaded with action and resource, minimal and functional. Could be slightly expanded with context but no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description does not explain what is returned (list of repositories). It is functionally complete for a simple list operation but lacks depth about return format. No sibling differentiation for when to use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and parameters (org, migration_id, per_page, page) are clearly described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, achieving baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource 'repositories in an organization migration'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_migrations_list_for_org which lists migrations themselves.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., github_migrations_list_for_org, github_repos_list_for_org). No context on prerequisites or compared to other migration-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Delete', which implies destructive action, but lacks details about irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and straightforward.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete operation, the description lacks important context: what happens if the inclusion doesn't exist, whether it requires specific permissions, or what the result looks like. It is barely adequate for a simple tool but missing details that would help an agent use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the parameter descriptions are merely the parameter names, adding no value. The description does not compensate by explaining what 'enterprise' or 'custom_property_name' mean in context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'OIDC custom property inclusion for an enterprise'. It unambiguously identifies the tool's action and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create or update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There are similar delete tools for org and create tools for enterprise, but the description provides no context for choosing this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Delete' but does not describe consequences (e.g., whether the deletion is permanent, requires special permissions, or impacts other settings). This leaves the agent with minimal understanding of the operation's effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core action. However, it could be slightly expanded to include context without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete operation with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable context. However, it lacks information about return values, effects, or any prerequisites. Given the API's complexity, more details would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage, but each parameter description is merely the parameter name (e.g., 'org' for org), adding no semantic value. The tool description does not elaborate on parameters either. Baseline 3 is appropriate as per guidelines.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'OIDC custom property inclusion' scoped to 'an organization', which clearly defines the tool's action and scope. The tool name also reinforces this, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create or list). It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it. Given many sibling tools, this lack of usage context hinders correct selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so description must disclose side effects, permissions, or error states. It merely says 'block' without explaining consequences (e.g., if already blocked, required admin role). Insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no fluff, front-loaded action. Every word is necessary and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and simple parameters, description should at least mention typical use case or preconditions (e.g., admin permissions). It lacks critical context for a blocking action in an org management toolset.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameters 'org' and 'username', but descriptions are minimal (just parameter names). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond schema, meeting baseline for high coverage but offering no enrichment.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Block a user from an organization' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like unblock_user and check_blocked_user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or context provided. The description only states what it does without any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are available, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'List', implying a read-only operation, but fails to mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or that the results may be limited to repositories with custom property values. The input schema shows pagination parameters, but the description does not hint at how the tool behaves with them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it is extremely minimal and could provide more structure without adding unnecessary length. It is efficiently short but sacrifices clarity for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should ideally explain the return format or example values. While the operation is simple, the description does not confirm that it returns a list of custom property values per repository or mention the structure. Adequate for a basic read operation but incomplete for a new user.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the tool's purpose. It does not elaborate on how the 'repository_query' parameter filters repositories or what 'custom property values' entails.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List custom property values for organization repositories' clearly states the verb (List), the resource (custom property values), and the scope (organization repositories). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that perform other operations like updating or deleting custom property values.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the extensive list of sibling tools, including other custom property operations and repository listing tools, explicit usage context is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the implied destruction. There is no mention of side effects, consequences for ongoing deliveries, or permission requirements. The minimal description leaves the agent without critical safety context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that front-loads the action. It is concise and efficient, but could include more detail without becoming verbose. It earns its place but leaves room for improvement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (two required parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention return values or confirm deletion success. A slightly more complete description would note the HTTP response or irreversibility.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 100% (both parameters described), so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond the schema definitions ('org' and 'hook_id').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete an organization webhook' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (organization webhook). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like github_orgs_create_webhook, github_orgs_get_webhook, github_orgs_update_webhook, etc., which have different actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, irreversibility, or scenarios where deletion is appropriate. Among siblings with similar webhook operations, no comparative advice is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only restates the purpose and does not disclose any behavioral traits like permissions, rate limits, or side effects. A minimal list operation is assumed, but more context would help.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence of 13 words that front-loads the core purpose. Every word is essential and there is no extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and the description does not explain what data is returned (e.g., repository names, access details). For a list tool, the agent needs to know the response structure. The description is too brief for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with per_page and page having detailed pagination docs. However, 'org' and 'pat_request_id' descriptions are merely the parameter names. The description adds no further meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'repositories requested to be accessed by a fine-grained personal access token'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_orgs_list_pat_grant_repositories (approved grants) and github_orgs_review_pat_grant_request (review action).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_orgs_list_pat_grant_repositories or github_orgs_list_pat_grant_requests. The agent must infer from the name, which may lead to incorrect selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states 'List deliveries' without revealing behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or that the operation is read-only. The schema hints at pagination via per_page and cursor, but the description does not confirm or clarify.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It contains no unnecessary words and immediately conveys the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description should at least indicate what the function returns (e.g., a list of delivery objects). It does not mention required permissions, typical use cases, or that the result may be paginated. For a list endpoint, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters clearly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'deliveries for an organization webhook'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_orgs_get_webhook_delivery (single delivery) and github_apps_list_webhook_deliveries (app-level). The scope (organization) is explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or similar tools like github_repos_list_webhook_deliveries or github_apps_list_webhook_deliveries. The description is purely declarative without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It only states the basic action. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., if the user remains a private member), permissions required, or whether the action is reversible. The description is too minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, complete sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the scope (only affects authenticated user's own membership), permissions needed, or consequences. The tool's complexity is not trivial, so more detail is warranted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters ('org' and 'username') are documented in the schema with their names. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline score is 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove public organization membership') and the subject ('for the authenticated user'). The tool name reinforces this. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_public_membership'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., removing others' memberships or leaving an organization). No prerequisites or context provided. The description is merely a statement of function without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'Review' without explaining what that entails (e.g., approve, deny, comment). It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it modifies state, requires permissions, or has side effects. No annotations are provided to compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no superfluous information. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain what happens after review (e.g., return values, errors). It lacks completeness for an action tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema parameter names. The body parameter description 'Request body (JSON object)' is vague but matches schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Review' and the specific resource 'a request to access organization resources with a fine-grained personal access token'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_orgs_list_pat_grant_requests (list) and github_orgs_review_pat_grant_requests_in_bulk (bulk review).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this is for a single request, or that it should be used after listing requests. Sibling tools exist for bulk review and listing, but no when/not-to-use advice is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Remove an organization role' without mentioning permissions required, reversibility, side effects, or any other behavioral details. The description is too minimal to provide transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative in the same length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
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 is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks context about effects, reversibility, or any post-removal state. For a basic removal tool, it is incomplete but not severely lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (each parameter has a description, though they are just the parameter names repeated). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage, but no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove an organization role from a team' clearly states the specific action (Remove), the resource (organization role), and the target (team). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like github_orgs_revoke_all_org_roles_team (which revokes all roles) and github_orgs_assign_team_to_org_role (assigns).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context on when not to use it. It is a standalone sentence without usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without detailing permissions required, side effects (e.g., user regains access immediately), or whether the operation is reversible. The description is too brief to inform the agent about important behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the core purpose without extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description captures the basic function. However, it lacks usage context such as required permissions or typical scenarios, making it marginally complete. A minimal viable description for this tool should include at least a note on admin access.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions in the schema are minimal ('org' and 'username'), and the tool description adds no further clarification. The description does not explain what values are valid for org or username, nor any constraints. Thus it adds no meaningful semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Unblock a user from an organization' clearly states the action (unblock) and the resource (user from an organization). It is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes this tool from siblings like github_orgs_block_user and other org management tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to unblock a user or prerequisites like admin permissions. It fails to mention that the user must be currently blocked or any context where this action is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'delete', implying a destructive action, but does not disclose irreversibility, permission requirements, or potential failure conditions. With no annotations, more transparency is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how to obtain the package_version_id, whether the action is reversible, or what the outcome should be.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, but they are merely the parameter names (e.g., 'package_type'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a package version for the authenticated user' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (package version) with scope (authenticated user), distinguishing it from sibling tools for org or user scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like deleting a whole package or deleting for an org. The description lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'Get … public key'. It omits important behavioral traits such as permission requirements, return format, or potential side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no extraneous words or repetition. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks context about the key's purpose (e.g., for encrypting secrets), typical usage, or any prerequisites. For a simple get tool, it meets basic needs but leaves agents uninformed about the broader context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (1 parameter), so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; the parameter 'org' is described only as 'org' in both schema and description, so no additional value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (Get), resource (private registries public key), and scope (for an organization). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'github_actions_get_org_public_key' or 'github_codespaces_get_org_public_key' by specifying 'private_registries'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other get_org_public_key tools). The description does not mention usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the action without detailing required permissions, side effects, or transaction boundaries.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and no annotations. The description omits details about the body structure, required fields, and return values, making it insufficient for a mutation tool with a complex parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter names. The 'body' parameter is described only as 'Request body (JSON object)', which is vague.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Add', the resource 'a field', and the scope 'organization-owned project'. It distinguishes from siblings like github_projects_add_field_for_user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no examples of appropriate contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description only states 'Delete a pending review' without disclosing side effects, idempotency, permissions needed, or what happens upon success. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete operation, the description lacks key context: it doesn't specify that the review must be pending, the response format, or error conditions. Given no output schema, more detail is warranted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 4 parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions (owner, repo, pull_number, review_id). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the action 'Delete' and the resource 'a pending review for a pull request'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like github_pulls_create_review or github_pulls_dismiss_review.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., dismiss_review, submit_review). No mention of prerequisites like the review must be in pending state or that only the review author can delete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavior. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but nothing about idempotency, authentication, or potential errors is mentioned. Adequate for a simple retrieval 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and no behavioral details. The description is too minimal; it doesn't explain what the return value looks like or provide any context about prerequisites or error scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage but parameter descriptions are trivial (just parameter names). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a review for a pull request', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_pulls_list_reviews (list) and github_pulls_create_review (create).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. github_pulls_list_reviews or other review-related tools. The description does not mention that it requires a specific review_id to retrieve a single review.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It fails to disclose the return format (likely boolean), required permissions, or any side effects. It only restates the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it differs from similar tools, or any usage context. For a simple check tool, more context is needed to guide proper selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (though minimal 'owner' and 'repo' descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Check' and the resource 'if immutable releases are enabled for a repository', making it easy to understand the action. It also implicitly distinguishes from siblings like enable/disable and org-level checks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like enabling/disabling immutable releases or org-level settings. No prerequisites or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action ('delete') without describing side effects, reversibility, error handling, or required permissions. The verb implies destructiveness 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence (7 words) that is front-loaded with the action. Every word contributes to the purpose, with no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about return values (e.g., success indicator) and common prerequisites, leaving some gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are trivial (just parameter names). The description adds no extra meaning about how to obtain 'autolink_id' or what constitutes a valid autolink. It fails to enhance understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete an autolink reference from a repository' uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('autolink reference'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, get, or list autolinks. The scope 'from a repository' adds clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions), or circumstances under which deletion is appropriate. It lacks any context about usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, permission requirements, or what happens if already disabled.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a simple disable operation, the description lacks any context about return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. It is not sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the full behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but parameter descriptions are just the names ('owner', 'repo'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Disable') and the resource ('Dependabot security updates'), aligning with the tool name. It is distinct from siblings like 'enable_automated_security_fixes' and 'check_automated_security_fixes'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context on side effects or when it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without detailing what 'access' means (e.g., push, admin), whether the response includes permission levels, or potential pagination. No mention of authentication needs or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. No redundant or unnecessary words. It earns its place with direct clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not indicate what the response contains (e.g., list of team names, objects with permissions). No context about prerequisites (e.g., branch protection must be enabled) or how this tool relates to siblings. Incomplete for a retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with all three parameters described, but the descriptions are tautological ('owner', 'repo', 'branch'). The tool description adds no extra meaning to parameters. Baseline is 3 per guidelines since coverage is high, even though the schema descriptions are uninformative.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get teams with access to the protected branch' clearly states the verb (Get), resource (teams), and context (access to protected branch). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_apps_with_access_to_protected_branch and get_users_with_access_to_protected_branch by specifying 'teams'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., get_apps_with_access_to_protected_branch, get_users_with_access_to_protected_branch). It lacks any context about prerequisites, such as requiring branch protection to be enabled, or when to prefer this over similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation ('List') but does not confirm idempotency, side effects, required permissions, or pagination behavior (despite pagination parameters). The minimal description fails to compensate for the missing annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the essential verb and resource, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about return format, pagination, and delivery semantics. It merely states the action without explaining what a delivery is or how pagination works, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline without improvement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List deliveries for a repository webhook' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('deliveries') with clear scope ('repository webhook'). It distinguishes from siblings like github_repos_list_webhooks (lists webhooks) and github_repos_get_webhook_delivery (gets a single delivery).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_repos_get_webhook_delivery for a single delivery, or org-level list). No context about prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, whether the update is destructive, or what side effects occur. The description is minimal and lacks transparency beyond stating the action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that is appropriately concise for a simple update operation. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it could benefit from slightly more detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity of the tool and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks context about the response or any special behaviors.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with basic descriptions (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'ghsa_id', and 'Request body (JSON object)'), but the description does not add meaning beyond the schema. The baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage, and the description adds no further value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a repository security advisory' clearly identifies the action (update) and resource (repository security advisory), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, get, list, and delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus creating or listing advisories. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions that would help an agent decide to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 indicates a destructive action (delete) but lacks details on irreversibility, side effects, authorization needs, or error behavior (e.g., what if key not found).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately brief for a simple operation, though it could include more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks completeness regarding prerequisites (key must exist and belong to user), destructive nature, and post-condition state, which are important for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; the schema parameter description 'key_id' is tautological and provides no extra context. The tool description itself does not elaborate on parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Delete a public SSH key for the authenticated user'. It specifies the verb (Delete), resource (public SSH key), and target (authenticated user), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, get, or list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list keys first, check key existence). No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a mutation but does not clarify whether it deletes all social accounts at once or one at a time. No details on reversibility, confirmation, or side effects. Since annotations are absent, the description should carry this burden but fails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It is as concise as possible.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of parameters and annotations, the description should explicitly state what is deleted (all or specific) and any consequences. The plural 'accounts' vs singular in name creates ambiguity, reducing completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, so description need not explain them. However, it does not clarify the meaning of 'social accounts' or the deletion scope beyond the name. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete), resource (social accounts), and scope (authenticated user). It directly matches the tool name and distinguishes from related tools like add or list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add or list social accounts). No context about prerequisites or behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden but merely states the action. It provides no additional context about behavior, such as that it returns the current user's profile, requires authentication, or is a safe read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It adequately conveys the core action but lacks details about return value or prerequisites. Still functional for a basic read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed as there are no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the authenticated user' clearly indicates the verb (get) and resource (authenticated user). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_by_id or get_by_username, though it could explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose pagination behavior (despite parameters hinting at it), rate limits, or ordering of results. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded. It contains no superfluous words, making it efficient. However, it could be slightly improved without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list-followers tool, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details like response format (list of user objects), pagination hints, and scope (requires username). Given no output schema and no annotations, more context would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; 'username' description is merely a repetition. The pagination parameters are well-described in the schema, so no deduction.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List followers of a user' clearly specifies the action (list) and the resource (followers of a user). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'list_followers_for_authenticated_user' and 'list_following_for_user' by specifying 'of a user'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_users_list_followers_for_authenticated_user. It does not mention prerequisites or filtering context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 does not state that the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or any side effects. The minimal description leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous information. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior. Important context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for per_page and page.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List), the resource (GPG keys), and the scope (for the authenticated user). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool github_users_list_gpg_keys_for_user by specifying 'authenticated user' instead of 'user'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_users_list_gpg_keys_for_user for other users) or any prerequisites. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or describe pagination behavior. The description is too sparse to guide safe and correct invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that is front-loaded with key information. However, it is perhaps overly concise given the lack of behavioral details, but it earns a high score for brevity without ambiguity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (list with pagination, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on authentication, response format, and differentiation from similar tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('public email addresses'), and the scope ('for the authenticated user'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'github_users_list_emails_for_authenticated_user' which likely retrieves all emails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or other related tools among the many user-related siblings, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it triggers notifications, requires authentication, or what happens if the user is already not followed. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple action with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but lacks detail on return values or side effects, leaving some uncertainty about the tool's full behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter `username` described as 'username', which is already clear from the parameter name. The description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Unfollow a user' uses a specific verb ('unfollow') and resource ('a user'), clearly indicating the action. It distinguishes from the sibling tool `github_users_follow` which does the opposite.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `github_users_follow` or other user management tools. There is no context about prerequisites, side effects, or scenarios where unfollowing might be inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add repository access,' which indicates a mutation, but does not explain whether it is additive or overwrites existing access, required permissions, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, 13 words, no unnecessary information. Highly concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description provides only the basic purpose. It lacks information on return values, error conditions, prerequisites, or behavior on success. Incomplete for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but parameter descriptions are tautological (just the parameter name repeated: 'org', 'runner_group_id', 'repository_id'). The description adds no further meaning. Baseline 3 is reduced because the descriptions are unhelpful and provide no context on what these IDs represent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('add'), the resource ('repository access'), and the target ('self-hosted runner group in an organization'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'remove_repo_access...' and 'add_selected_repo_to_org_secret' by specifying the exact operation and resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context of the name implies use for granting repository access, but no prerequisites or edge cases are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavioral details. It only says 'Approve a workflow run' without explaining side effects, permissions, or what 'approve' means (e.g., triggers the run?). Minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single short sentence with no unnecessary words, but could be more informative in the same length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no annotations, and the description fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., must be a fork PR, required permissions), resulting in incomplete context for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters have basic descriptions) but the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter names (owner, repo, run_id). Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Approve' and the resource 'workflow run' with the specific context 'for a fork pull request', distinguishing it from other workflow run actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly indicates it's for fork pull requests but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like re_run_workflow or cancel_workflow_run for non-fork cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 does not mention that the action is irreversible, any required permissions, or potential error conditions. The description adds minimal value beyond the function name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the essential purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation, the description is minimally adequate but could be improved by noting the destructive nature or any prerequisites. However, given the tool's simplicity, it does not leave major gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what is already in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Delete) and the resource (GitHub Actions cache for a repository), and specifies the use of a cache ID, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool that deletes by key.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like deleting by key. The agent is left to infer usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Delete', implying a destructive action, but does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, or any side effects. This is insufficient for safe AI agent invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, very concise and to the point. It avoids unnecessary words. While it could include a bit more context without becoming verbose, it is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and the simplicity of the operation, the description should provide more context about the action, such as its destructiveness, required permissions, or prerequisites. Currently, it is too minimal for an AI agent to fully understand the behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both 'org' and 'runner_group_id' are described). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which already provides sufficient parameter context. According to the guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete'), the resource ('self-hosted runner group'), and the scope ('from an organization'). This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform other operations (create, get, update, list) on the same resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the name itself is very specific, so an agent can infer the usage context. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the effect (remove from list) but fails to mention whether this requires admin permissions, is reversible, or impacts existing runners. The description omits key behavioral information needed by an agent to make safe decisions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but could be more complete. It does not explain what self-hosted runners are or the implications of removal, but the parameters clarify the entities involved. It meets minimum viability but leaves room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with both 'org' and 'repository_id' listed, but the schema descriptions are minimal (just parameter names). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove a repository from the list of repositories allowed to use self-hosted runners in an organization' clearly states the specific action (remove) and resource (repository from allowed list). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool `github_actions_enable_selected_repository_self_hosted_runners_organization`, which performs the inverse operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool's purpose is clear, it does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or warn against misuse. The description lacks any context about when to disable a repository or how it relates to other tools like enable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. As a read-only operation, the risk is low but the description adds no value beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary and there is no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get operation with one parameter, the description is almost adequate. However, it lacks context on the return value format and what constitutes a valid 'enterprise' (e.g., slug, ID). Gaps exist, especially since siblings exist for other scopes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the parameter 'enterprise' has a description field). The tool description does not add any additional meaning, format, or example for the parameter, so it meets the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get), resource (cache retention limit), and scope (enterprise). It distinguishes from sibling tools like `github_actions_get_actions_cache_retention_limit_for_organization` by specifying 'enterprise'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., organization or repository versions). No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states a read operation ('Get') without disclosing potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. The description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally viable but lacks context about return values (e.g., the structure of the storage limit response). For a tool with many siblings, more context would aid accurate selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has high coverage (100%) but the parameter description is tautological ('enterprise'). The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema coverage, even though no extra value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('GitHub Actions cache storage limit'), and the scope ('for an enterprise'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools targeting organizations or repositories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_actions_cache_storage_limit_for_organization' or 'get_actions_cache_storage_limit_for_repository'. No context on prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool does but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permission requirements, error scenarios, or response format. A minimal read-only indication is implied but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain what the response contains (e.g., list of allowed actions), potential errors, or usage constraints. For a simple getter, it is marginally adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'org' with description 'org', which is just the name. Since schema description coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'allowed actions and reusable workflows', and the scope 'for an organization'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_allowed_actions_repository' (organization vs repository) and 'set_allowed_actions_organization' (get vs set).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'set_allowed_actions_organization' for modifications or 'get_allowed_actions_repository' for a repository scope. No explicit context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states it retrieves settings but omits details like required permissions, response format, or that it is read-only. The word 'Get' implies non-destructive behavior, but no additional context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence description is highly concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource. No extraneous words or repeating schema information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention what the returned settings contain, any prerequisites, or how it relates to sibling tools (e.g., the setter or repo version).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'org' with a description of 'org'. The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, such as the expected format or example. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema covers the parameter adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it gets artifact and log retention settings for an organization. The verb 'Get' and resource are specific, and sibling tools include a variant for repositories and a setter, so the scope is well distinguished.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the repository version or the setter. The description does not specify context or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action ('get') without disclosing behavioral traits such as idempotency, permissions required, rate limits, or what occurs if the organization does not exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal. It fails to explain what 'images' means, whether a list or single item is returned, or any other context that would help the agent understand the output. While not severely lacking, it is not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'org' with a description 'org', and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves 'GitHub-owned images for GitHub-hosted runners in an organization'. It uses specific verb+resource and distinguishes from siblings like 'github_actions_get_hosted_runners_partner_images_for_org' and 'github_actions_get_hosted_runner_for_org'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., partner images or specific runner info). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description carries the full burden but offers no additional insight beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no unnecessary words. Perfectly concise for a simple read tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description is adequate but doesn't explain what 'limits' refer to (e.g., concurrent job limits, usage quotas). Minimal context for an agent to fully understand the return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter 'org' (description 'org'), but the description adds no extra context. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the trivial description could have been enriched.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('limits on GitHub-hosted runners for an organization'), making it distinct from sibling tools like 'get_hosted_runner_for_org' (single runner) and 'list_hosted_runners_for_org' (list runners).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'get_hosted_runners_github_owned_images_for_org' or 'list_hosted_runners_for_org'. Given many similar siblings, the description should provide context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. However, the description only states the purpose and does not convey any behavioral traits such as reading or mutation, pagination, rate limits, or side effects. It assumes the agent infers that listing is a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the essential verb and resource. No unnecessary words, perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description should ideally explain what is returned (e.g., list of job objects). It does not mention pagination or the structure of the response. However, for a straightforward list tool with well-described parameters, it is minimally complete but could be improved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes all parameters (e.g., per_page and page have detailed descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List jobs for a workflow run attempt' clearly specifies the verb (list) and the resource (jobs for a workflow run attempt). It distinguishes this tool from the sibling `github_actions_list_jobs_for_workflow_run` by including 'attempt' in both name and description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like `github_actions_list_jobs_for_workflow_run` (which lists jobs for the latest attempt or without attempt specification). There is no mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description does not disclose what runner applications are, what the output looks like, or any behavioral aspects. No annotations provided to fill the gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded. No unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on output, pagination, or permissions. Could be improved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage, and description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter name. Baseline score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool lists runner applications for an organization, distinguishing it from the repo-level sibling tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the repo-level counterpart. Lacks context on appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a destructive write operation but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., only custom labels affected), or reversibility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence that is front-loaded. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, but lacks details about the scope (only custom labels) and correspondence to the GitHub API endpoint. Could be improved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters ('org', 'runner_id'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, justifying a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove all custom labels') and the target resource ('self-hosted runner for an organization'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'remove_custom_label' (singular) and 'set_custom_labels' (set).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to remove all labels vs. a single label, or vs. setting labels). No mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states "Delete," implying a destructive action, but with no annotations, it fails to disclose behavioral traits like irreversibility, required permissions, or impact on notifications. Minimal disclosure beyond the verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no unnecessary words. It earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks context about what a thread subscription is or how it relates to other subscription operations. Slightly more context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage for the only parameter (thread_id) is 100%, but the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description "Delete a thread subscription" uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (thread subscription), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like github_activity_delete_repo_subscription and github_activity_set_thread_subscription.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to set vs delete a subscription, or any prerequisites or side effects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, irreversibility, or associated resource impacts. For a destructive operation, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, perfectly concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks contextual details like irreversibility or prerequisites, which would be beneficial for a deletion tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The parameter description 'installation_id' is tautological, and the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete an installation for the authenticated app', specifying the verb (Delete), resource (installation), and context (for the authenticated app). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like suspend or authorization deletion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as suspend or unsuspend installation. No prerequisites, permissions, or contextual hints are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'stubbed' without explaining side effects, permissions, response format, or limitations. The agent is left without critical safety or behavior information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single phrase with no wasted words. It conveys the essential purpose and variant status efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain return values, pagination, or any constraints. A more complete description would include what data is returned and any account access prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'account_id', and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own description. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents it sufficiently.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Get' and resource 'subscription plan for an account', and the qualifier '(stubbed)' distinguishes it from the non-stubbed sibling tool 'github_apps_get_subscription_plan_for_account'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'stubbed' label implies testing/mock scenarios, but no further context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only says 'Get a delivery', omitting any details about return format, side effects, or prerequisites. It is minimally transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence, front-loaded with the action. No superfluous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get operation, the description is adequate but lacks context about what a delivery is or any prerequisites. Could be more helpful given the presence of related tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the description does not add meaning beyond the parameter name 'delivery_id'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a delivery for an app webhook', distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_webhook_deliveries' and 'redeliver_webhook_delivery'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list, redeliver). The description does not provide context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose what suspension entails (e.g., reversible, side effects), required permissions, or whether it affects the app across all repositories. Without annotations, this minimal description is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and resource effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks context about the effect of suspension or the return value. More detail would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, 'installation_id', has a description that merely repeats its name. Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Suspend an app installation' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'github_apps_unsuspend_installation' and 'github_apps_delete_installation' by using a different verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'unsuspend_installation' or 'delete_installation'. The description does not include context like prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description carries full burden but only states 'Get'. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one param), the description is adequate but minimal. No output schema or annotations, so the agent lacks full context about the return value. Sufficient for basic understanding but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'org'. Description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (just 'org'). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly specifies verb 'Get', resource 'Copilot coding agent permissions', and scope 'for an organization'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_permissions or list_repositories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't note that this is a read-only operation or contrast with related tools like 'set_copilot_coding_agent_permissions_organization'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description only states the action without disclosing effects (e.g., idempotency, permissions required, error conditions).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action and resource, no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple removal operation, the description is adequate but lacks mention of Dependabot specificity, return values, or error cases; no output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage); the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and the resource ('selected repository from an organization secret'), differentiating it from sibling tools like add/set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_selected_repos) or prerequisites (e.g., secret must exist, repo must be currently selected).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like authentication requirements, error responses, or whether the gist must be accessible. It is insufficiently transparent for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single clear sentence with no wasted words. It is well-structured and directly states the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (getting a specific comment) and the lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it could provide more context, such as that the gist must exist and the user must have access, or list common response fields. It is not incomplete but lacks depth.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters described in schema, albeit with just their names). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters, but the description does not compensate or enrich understanding of the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a gist comment' clearly states the action (get) and resource (gist comment), differentiating it from sibling tools like github_gists_list_comments (which lists comments) and github_gists_get (which gets the entire gist). It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when a specific comment ID is known versus when to list comments first. No exclusions or context are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as idempotency, auth requirements, or side effects. It does not disclose whether the tool fails silently or errors if already starred.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it could include more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values or behavior (e.g., confirmation, error handling).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter 'gist_id', but its description just repeats the name. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Star a gist' clearly states the action (star) and the resource (gist), distinguishing it from siblings like unstar and check_is_starred.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (to star a gist) but provides no guidance on prerequisites, when not to use, or alternatives like checking if already starred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It merely states it deletes, but does not disclose side effects, irreversibility, or permission requirements. Insufficient for a destructive action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action. No unnecessary words or information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity (2 required params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is minimal but technically covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks broader context about the operation's effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (hosted compute network configuration) with scope (from an organization). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like create, update, and list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create or update). There is no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when there are no results. The description is too minimal to compensate for the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and to the point, but it lacks any structure such as additional sections or examples. It is concise but could benefit from more detail without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format, pagination, or any additional context about what the list contains (e.g., issue fields). The description is too brief for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema includes 10 parameters, all with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (list), resource (organization issues), and scope (assigned to authenticated user). This distinguishes it from other issue listing tools like github_issues_list (for user-scoped) and github_issues_list_for_repo (repo-scoped).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing organization issues assigned to the user, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as github_issues_list or github_issues_list_for_repo, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Delete' without indicating that the operation is permanent, irreversible, or requires admin permissions. No side effects or expected outcomes beyond deletion are described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with two straightforward parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information on the operation's irreversibility or preconditions, which would improve completeness. Context signals (no output schema, simple params) lower the bar, but still room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions 'org' and 'migration_id'). The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the semantics are clear but not enriched.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'organization migration archive'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_status', 'list', 'start', and 'delete_archive_for_authenticated_user' by specifying the org context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether the archive must first be downloaded or if it should be deleted immediately after migration. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'list', implying a read-only operation. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the action. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description minimally explains the purpose but lacks details on return format or any special behavior. Adequate but could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'org'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and the resource (OIDC custom property inclusions for an organization). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like create, delete, and get operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, which is important given the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, expected output, or error conditions. Bare minimum.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words. Efficient and direct.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter check tool, the description is minimally adequate but lacks information about return value, error cases, and authentication. Could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but parameter descriptions ('org', 'username') are minimal. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already identifies the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Check if a user is blocked' and the resource 'by an organization'. It distinguishes this read check from sibling tools like block_user and unblock_user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_blocked_users. No context about authentication or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., whether it returns paginated results, required permissions, or any side effects). The description carries the full burden but fails to add value beyond the action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using minimal words to convey the core purpose. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no output schema), the description is arguably adequate, but it lacks details on the nature of issue fields, potential response structure, or any limitations. It is minimally complete but could be improved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description does not add any meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema already documents the 'org' parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('issue fields') scoped to an organization. It distinguishes from sibling tools that create, delete, or update issue fields.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as listing issue types or projects. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention read-only nature, required permissions, or any side effects. The simple statement of action lacks necessary context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded and contains no redundancy or extraneous detail. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about the return format or expected behavior. While 'list repositories' is minimally adequate, it does not fully compensate for the missing structured information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions, but they are minimal ('org', 'pat_id'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. A score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List repositories a fine-grained personal access token has access to' specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'repositories for a PAT grant'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like github_orgs_list_pat_grants (which lists grants) and github_orgs_list_pat_grant_request_repositories (which lists repos for grant requests).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_orgs_list_pat_grants or github_orgs_list_pat_grant_requests. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states 'get list' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or what constitutes a 'conflicting package'. Minimal behavioral info.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no filler. Efficiently conveys the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with one param and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on what 'conflicting packages' means or any output format. Could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'org' described as 'org'. The description adds little beyond the schema, just implying that the organization is the scope. Baseline 3 applies as schema covers the param.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (get list), resource (conflicting packages), context (Docker migration), and scope (for organization). It distinguishes from sibling tools for authenticated user or user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the authenticated user or user versions. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for using the org parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether it's read-only, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description should provide more context but does not.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter, but the description does not explain what 'conflicting packages' are or the format of the response. It is adequate for a basic understanding but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (username has description 'username'), but that description is trivial. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 per high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get list of conflicting packages during Docker migration for user', specifying the verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like list_docker_migration_conflicting_packages_for_authenticated_user and _for_organization by explicitly mentioning 'for user' and requiring a username parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus the authenticated user or organization variants. The description does not mention alternates or context for choosing this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get' which indicates a read operation, but no further behavioral traits (e.g., authentication needs, rate limits, side effects) are disclosed. This is minimal and insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—one sentence. It is front-loaded with the key information. However, it is so minimal that it barely earns its place; more detail could be added without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema or annotations, and the description is very short. It lacks details about what data the response contains, the role of 'secret_name', or any prerequisites. Given the large context of sibling tools, this is insufficient for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions, but those descriptions are just the parameter names ('org', 'secret_name'). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a private registry for an organization' clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (private registry for an organization). It differentiates from sibling tools like create, delete, list, and update by implying a single retrieval operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating the action but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listing registries. No exclusions or context are given, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether pagination is supported (though schema has before/after), required permissions, or the nature of returned data. This is a significant gap for a read operation with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous content. It is concise, but could be slightly more descriptive without losing brevity (e.g., specifying that it returns field definitions).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a 'field' is, the response structure, or any nuances of the listing. A more complete description is needed for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., org, project_number, pagination). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List project fields for organization' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (project fields for a specific organization), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like github_projects_list_fields_for_user and github_projects_get_field_for_org.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_fields_for_user or get_field). The name implies organization-level listing, but the description does not explicitly mention context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or response behavior. It only states the action without context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description does not specify return value type (e.g., boolean, merge status) or any side effects. For a simple check tool, this is adequate but incomplete for an agent to fully understand usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter, but the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Check if a pull request has been merged' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like pulls_get, pulls_merge, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pulls_get for full details, pulls_merge for merging). No when-not-to-use or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are available, so the description carries full burden. It does not mention key behaviors like the scope (all PRs in repo) or that results are paginated. However, the schema details sorting and filtering options, partially compensating. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence. While it could include more useful details without becoming verbose, it is not padded with unnecessary information and gets the core purpose across efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what review comments are, the scope (all PRs in repo), or the structure of the response, leaving an agent to infer from the schema alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond stating the tool lists review comments, but the schema alone sufficiently describes parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists review comments in a repository, which is accurate. However, it does not differentiate from the similar sibling tool `github_pulls_list_review_comments` (which likely lists comments for a specific pull request), potentially causing confusion for an agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `github_pulls_list_review_comments` or other comment-listing tools. There are no explicit usage conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states 'Delete' without mentioning error conditions, idempotency, auth requirements, or consequences (e.g., irreversibility). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the basic purpose without any extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate. However, it could benefit from mentioning that the reaction_id must exist and that the action is destructive and irreversible, given the lack of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but each parameter description is a tautology (e.g., 'owner', 'repo'). While the baseline is 3 for high coverage, the description adds no additional meaning. The tool description also does not explain the parameters beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a commit comment reaction' is a concise verb+resource statement. It clearly indicates the action (delete) and the resource (commit comment reaction), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create or list reactions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'github_reactions_delete_for_issue' or 'github_reactions_delete_for_pull_request_comment'. The agent is left to infer usage context solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, that pagination is supported via per_page and page parameters, or what the response format looks like. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with one sentence and zero waste. However, it is slightly under-specified for a tool with pagination and filtering options. It earns its place but could include a bit more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has pagination, optional content filtering, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks mention of pagination, default behavior (list all reactions if content omitted), and any hint about the response structure. The schema covers parameters but the description fails to provide a complete picture.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The content parameter already has a detailed description in the schema, so the description is adequate but not enhanced.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List reactions for an issue' clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'reactions for an issue'. It is specific to issues and distinguishes from sibling reactions tools for commit comments, issue comments, pull request review comments, and releases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to other reaction list tools. While the context implies it is for issues, it does not mention alternatives or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. The description only states 'Delete a commit comment', which implies a destructive action but provides no additional behavioral traits such as permanence, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a delete operation, more context is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of three words that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information, earning a high score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (three standard parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the core action. However, it lacks completeness regarding prerequisites, side effects, or error scenarios. The 100% schema coverage partially compensates, but the description should offer more behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description in the schema (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'comment_id'), but these descriptions are minimal. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 per the guidelines.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a commit comment' clearly states the verb (delete) and the resource (commit comment). It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_repos_create_commit_comment, github_repos_get_commit_comment, and github_repos_update_commit_comment, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when to delete a comment versus update it. It also lacks prerequisites or context about permissions or irreversibility.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get all' without mentioning permissions requirements, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. Lacks necessary transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single clear sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource. No extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list/get-all operation, some details about response structure (e.g., array, pagination) would be helpful but are not provided. Lacks completeness given no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but parameter descriptions are just the name. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'deployment protection rules for an environment', clearly distinguishing from related tools like get_custom_deployment_protection_rule which retrieves a single rule.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No prerequisites or context provided; siblings like create_deployment_protection_rule or disable_deployment_protection_rule are not differentiated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist. The description does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, or rate limits. Minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no unnecessary words. Information is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter GET tool, the description is minimal but adequate. Could be improved by mentioning what a global advisory is or what the response contains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the parameter description ('ghsa_id') only repeats the name, adding no extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a global security advisory' clearly specifies the verb (get) and resource (global security advisory). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_global_advisories and get_repository_advisory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_global_advisories or get_repository_advisory). No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does not specify the return format (e.g., boolean or HTTP status) or any side effects. The description is too brief for a complete transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, zero waste. Every word is necessary and front-loaded. Perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks details on return value and usage context, which slightly reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'username'. The description (just 'username') adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. At baseline 3, no extra credit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action ('Check if a user is blocked') and the resource ('by the authenticated user'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'github_users_block' and 'github_users_unblock' by being a read-only check.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, could mention to use before actions requiring non-blocked status, or to use 'github_users_list_blocked_by_authenticated_user' to see all blocked users.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the name. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements, or pagination behavior (though schema hints at pagination).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it may be too minimal for a tool with no output schema, but for a simple list operation it is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description does not explain the return format (e.g., list of social account objects). It also does not mention that results are paginated, despite pagination parameters in the schema. This leaves the agent guessing about the response structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List social accounts for the authenticated user' clearly states the action (list), resource (social accounts), and scope (authenticated user). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'github_users_list_social_accounts_for_user' which is for a specific user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'github_users_list_social_accounts_for_user'. The distinction is implied by the names, but the description does not clarify it or provide any alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states a write operation but does not mention side effects, permissions needed, idempotency, or error handling. The behavioral profile is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. Every word is necessary, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action. It lacks behavioral details but is sufficient for basic usage. Missing permission/error context reduces completeness slightly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are minimal (just parameter names), but the tool description provides context for what org and repository_id represent. This adds limited value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Add' and the resource 'repository to the list of repositories allowed to use self-hosted runners in an organization'. It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like adding repos to org secrets or variables.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention preconditions, when not to use, or direct to related tools. Agents must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'List', implying a read-only operation, which matches expected behavior. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose potential pagination, rate limits, or ordering of results. For a simple list operation, the transparency is acceptable but could be improved.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence of 9 words, directly stating the tool's function with no extraneous information. Every word is necessary, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with two required parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the action and scope. However, it could mention what fields are in the response (e.g., version IDs, creation date) to aid the agent in post-processing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the parameter descriptions in the schema are just the parameter names ('org', 'image_definition_id'), providing no additional meaning. The tool description does not elaborate on these parameters. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), and the description does not add value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists image versions of a custom image for an organization, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('image versions of a custom image'). It distinguishes from siblings like `list_custom_images` (lists images themselves) and `get_custom_image_version` (gets a single version). However, it could be more precise about what details are returned (e.g., version IDs, names).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, when to list all versions vs. get a specific version with `get_custom_image_version_for_org`. The description does not mention use cases or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, yet the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects, or what happens if the label does not exist. It is too sparse for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that frontloads the key action and resource. No unnecessary words or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple removal operation, the description is minimally adequate but lacks contextual details such as prerequisites (e.g., runner must exist, runner must have labels). No output schema is present, but the operation's outcome is straightforward.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema descriptions are trivial (just parameter names), and the tool description does not add meaningful semantic context for the parameters (e.g., how to obtain runner_id, format of label name). With 100% schema coverage but no added value, this is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (remove), the resource (custom label from a self-hosted runner), and the scope (organization). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like add, list, set, and repo-level variants.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use remove_all_custom_labels or the repo-level counterpart). It merely states the operation without contextual advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description lacks details about behavioral traits such as destructive nature, required permissions, or side effects. It only states the action without elaboration.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no extraneous information, fitting the tool's straightforward purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not mention return values or side effects, leaving the agent without context on what the tool produces or modifies.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Re-run' and resource 'failed jobs from a workflow run', distinguishing it from sibling tools like re_run_job_for_workflow_run (specific job) and re_run_workflow (entire workflow).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for re-running only failed jobs, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state that, nor does it mention pagination behavior (despite pagination parameters being present) or authentication requirements. The description is adequate but could provide more detail to compensate for the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the essential information with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description should provide more context about what is returned (e.g., list of devcontainer configuration paths or names). It does not explain what a devcontainer configuration is or what fields to expect. The agent may need additional context to interpret the results correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter described. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The parameter descriptions in the schema are minimal (e.g., 'owner' just says 'owner'), but the tool description does not enhance or clarify them. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list), the resource (devcontainer configurations), the scope (in a repository), and the user context (authenticated user). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list_in_repository' which lists codespaces, not devcontainer configurations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this is for retrieving devcontainer definitions before creating a codespace, nor does it contrast with listing codespaces themselves. The agent is left to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It simply states the action without disclosing any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, rate limits, or what happens if no restrictions are set).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words, achieving maximum efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should provide at least a hint of return structure or behavior. It only states the basic operation, leaving the agent uninformed about what the response will contain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', resource 'interaction restrictions', and scope 'your public repositories', which matches the tool name and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_restrictions_for_org' and 'get_restrictions_for_repo'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., org or repo level). It only states the scope implicitly, lacking explicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the basic mutation action without disclosing required permissions, irreversibility, or effects on label availability. The agent has limited understanding of the operation's implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant information. It is fully front-loaded and each word contributes to the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having simple parameters, the lack of output schema and limited behavioral info leaves the agent needing more context. It fails to differentiate from sibling labeling tools adequately, and does not explain the scope of removal (e.g., labels persist in the repo).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (each parameter has a description, albeit minimal), so baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, such as formats or usage hints for the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove all labels from an issue' clearly states the action (remove) and the resource (all labels from an issue). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'github_issues_remove_label' (single label) and 'github_issues_set_labels' (setting labels, not just removing).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for clearing all labels, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives like 'remove_label' for individual removal or 'set_labels' for setting to empty. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read operation ('List') but does not disclose behavioral details such as pagination support (though schema covers it) or required permissions. With no annotations, the description bears the burden, but it is minimally adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant information. It is efficiently front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not describe the shape of the returned data. Given the tool is a list operation, the lack of return value information is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on what 'org' or 'role_id' represent or the format of the results.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list), resource (teams assigned to an organization role), and context (organization role). It distinguishes well from siblings like list_org_roles and list_org_role_users.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites (org, role_id) or related tools for listing roles or assigning teams.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action ('remove') without disclosing behavioral traits such as irreversibility, required permissions, side effects, or whether it applies to current or future roles. For a destructive operation, more context is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, conveying the core purpose immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive action with no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks context about permissions, side effects, and implications, making it incomplete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but parameter descriptions are minimal ('org', 'username'). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 due to high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove all organization roles for a user' clearly states the verb (remove), resource (organization roles), and target (a user), distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on teams or individual roles.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for revoking all roles from a user but does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives like revoking individual roles or team roles, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'list', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or any behavioral traits. No annotations exist to compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single clear sentence, front-loaded with key action and object. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation, the description is mostly sufficient. It could mention pagination or scope, but the input schema covers those details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions (including pagination links). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List commit comments for a repository' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list commits or list issues. It is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or related tools, which is a gap given the many sibling list operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('sync') without detailing side effects, required permissions (e.g., write access to the fork), or whether it performs a merge commit or rebase. For a mutation tool, this is insufficiently transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is direct and free of extraneous words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation that syncs a fork with upstream), the description lacks information about return values, error conditions, and the exact nature of the sync operation. The body parameter is underdocumented, and no output schema exists to compensate. The description does not fully equip an agent to invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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. However, the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema descriptions. The 'body' parameter is described vaguely as 'Request body (JSON object)' without explaining expected properties or format, leaving the agent needing additional context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Sync a fork branch with the upstream repository' clearly identifies the tool's function: merging changes from the upstream repository into a fork branch. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'github_repos_merge' (which merges branches within the same repo) and 'github_pulls_merge' (which merges pull requests).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for keeping a fork up-to-date but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., having a fork configured with upstream) or exclusion criteria is provided, relying solely on the tool name and one-line description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to disclose that it is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, rate limits, or side effects. The description is minimal and does not add value beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 9 words, very concise. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool but could benefit from additional context. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should indicate what the response contains (e.g., the retention limit value). It does not, leaving the agent unaware of the return format. The description is too sparse for a tool that lacks structured output documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both 'owner' and 'repo'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Get GitHub Actions cache retention limit for a repository'. It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (cache retention limit), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying 'for a repository', differentiating from similar tools for enterprise and organization scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'for a repository', which guides the agent to use this tool when needing the retention limit at the repo level versus other scopes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states 'get allowed actions' without disclosing response format, authentication needs, or rate limits. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence that fully captures the tool's purpose without any fluff. Front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get operation with no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks completeness. It does not hint at the return structure or any important context like required permissions or pagination.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with basic descriptions for owner and repo. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets baseline but does not enhance semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it's a get operation for allowed actions and reusable workflows on a repository. It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_allowed_actions_repository' and 'get_allowed_actions_organization' by specifying repository-level scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., org-level get) or about prerequisites. Usage is implied by the name and resource, but lacks proactive direction for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The use of 'Get' implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, idempotent, or safe. It also does not disclose any rate limits, authentication requirements, or data format. This is adequate but could be more transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose ('Get GitHub-hosted runners machine specs'). No unnecessary words or details, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains the main action but does not elaborate on what 'machine specs' includes (e.g., CPU, memory, disk). It also does not mention return structure or common use cases. For a simple getter, it is minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('org') with a description 'org', providing 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, such as format or ownership. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves machine specs for GitHub-hosted runners for an organization. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('machine specs'), distinguishing it from siblings like `get_hosted_runner_for_org` (which gets a specific runner) and `get_hosted_runners_platforms_for_org` (which gets platforms).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like `github_actions_get_hosted_runner_for_org` or `github_actions_get_hosted_runners_limits_for_org`. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and scope but omits details like pagination behavior, return format, or any side effects. Since 'list' implies read-only, but more context would be helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with optional pagination and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the action and scope but lacks details on return type or usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both per_page and page. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List), resource (app installations), and scope (accessible to the user access token). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like github_apps_list_installation_repos_for_authenticated_user and github_apps_list_installations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The context is implied but not stated, and alternatives such as github_apps_list_installations are not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. Only states 'Retrieve', which is a read operation, but lacks details about authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no wasted words. Appropriately concise for a straightforward retrieval operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists; description does not explain return values or structure. Behavioral context is minimal. Adequate for a simple tool but could be improved by mentioning what is returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters documented (enterprise, configuration_id). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Score at baseline as per rubric.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve', the resource 'a code security configuration', and scope 'of an enterprise'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'github_code_security_get_configurations_for_enterprise' (list) and 'github_code_security_get_configuration' (likely for org).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is implied by the name (single configuration vs list), but the description does not mention exclusions or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It lacks critical behavioral details such as irreversibility, data loss, or whether the codespace must be stopped before deletion.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, concise sentence that gets straight to the point without redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the operation and absence of output schema, the description is adequate but could mention the outcome (e.g., successful deletion returns a confirmation).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter described, but the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The parameter name alone is the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Delete), resource (a codespace), and scope (for the authenticated user). It effectively distinguishes from sibling codespace deletion tools like delete_from_organization.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for deleting the authenticated user's own codespace but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidelines, prerequisites, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only listing operation, but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. Minimal but adequate for a simple list tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 5 words, extremely concise. It is front-loaded with key information. While very brief, it is not wasteful; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain return format (e.g., array of codespace objects) or pagination behavior. For a listing tool, this leaves agents guessing about the response structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes each parameter (org, username, per_page, page). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List codespaces for a user in organization' clearly specifies the verb (list), resource (codespaces), and scope (for a specific user within an organization). It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_codespaces_list_for_authenticated_user or github_codespaces_list_in_organization by narrowing the focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (when you need codespaces for a particular user in an org) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Given multiple related list endpoints, more direction would help, but the purpose is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the core behavior (listing codespaces) and implies a read operation. However, with no annotations, it does not elaborate on side effects, authentication requirements, or limitations. It is transparent but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and essential scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is brief but functional. It does not explain return values, pagination behavior, or error conditions. More context would improve usability, especially among similar sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter names and brief descriptions. Pagination parameters link to external docs but do not explain their effect in this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List'), resource ('codespaces'), and scope ('in a repository for the authenticated user'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling codespaces list tools (e.g., list_for_authenticated_user, list_in_organization) by specifying the repository context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contexts where other list tools are more appropriate. The description simply states the function without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist. The description only says 'Remove interaction restrictions', but it does not disclose whether removal is irreversible, what permissions are needed, or what happens if no restrictions exist. A removal operation should specify idempotency and effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. No unnecessary words, every part is relevant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple removal tool with one parameter, the description is adequate but lacks details like prerequisites, results, or error states. Additional context about the effect of removal would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'org' is described minimally as 'org' in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Remove', resource 'interaction restrictions', and scope 'for an organization'. It distinguishes from siblings that target different scopes (user, repo) and other actions (get, set).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool is used when you want to remove interaction restrictions for an org, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus getting or setting restrictions, or when not to use it. Siblings exist but no differentiation guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'Get', implying a read operation without detailing rate limits, authentication needs, or return format. Additional behavioral context is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks any indication of return value or behavioral details that could aid an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters (100% schema description coverage). The description adds no new parameter meaning, but for a parameterless tool, baseline is 4; no additional semantics are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the Zen of GitHub' clearly states the tool's action ('Get') and target resource ('the Zen of GitHub'), distinguishing it from the many sibling tools that perform specific GitHub Actions, issues, repos, etc., operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. Given the simplicity, basic usage context could still be useful but is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but lacks details on idempotency, permissions, or rate limits. The description is minimal beyond the action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple GET tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is barely adequate. It does not explain what an autolink is or what the response contains, but it covers the basic action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (each parameter has a simple description), so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain the purpose or format of the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get an autolink reference of a repository' uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like create, delete, and list autolinks by its name and action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit usage guidance is provided. The name and description imply it is for retrieving a single autolink by ID, but there are no indicators of when to use this versus other autolink tools or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the function without revealing whether authentication is required, that results are paginated, or what the response format is. For a tool with zero annotations, more detail is needed (e.g., 'Returns a list of user objects; pagination is supported via per_page and page parameters').
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no unnecessary information, and it is front-loaded for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (a list endpoint with pagination), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not mention that the response is paginated or what the response objects look like. Since there is no output schema, the description could have provided more context about the return value to fully inform the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the input schema already describes all parameters adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List the people a user follows' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (people a user follows). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'github_users_list_followers_for_user' (list followers) and 'github_users_check_following_for_user' (check if following).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving the list of users followed by a particular user, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for checking a specific follow relationship, use github_users_check_following_for_user). No exclusion criteria or context for choosing this tool among many user-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a state change (unsuspending) but does not disclose any side effects, prerequisites, or reversibility. For a simple action, it is somewhat transparent but lacks detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (two words plus a noun phrase) and front-loaded. Every word earns its place, though it may be too brief for complex scenarios.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete. It could mention that it reverses a suspension, but for a basic action, it is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The baseline is 3, and no additional value is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Unsuspend an app installation' clearly states the action (unsuspend) and the resource (app installation). It is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like 'suspend_installation' or 'delete_installation'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that it should be used after suspending an installation, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description indicates a destructive action ('Remove') but does not disclose details about the effect (e.g., immediate cancellation, notifications). Basic transparency is achieved, but more context would help.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any extraneous words. It is optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It could specify that it removes seat assignments for all members of the specified teams, but it is sufficient for context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the 'org' parameter with a description that matches the tool's context. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Remove' and resource 'teams from the Copilot subscription', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_copilot_seats_for_teams' and 'cancel_copilot_seat_assignment_for_users'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cancel_copilot_seat_assignment_for_users), nor any prerequisites like required permissions. The description only states the action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 states 'Get' indicating a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as permissions needed, rate limits, or side effects. For a simple getter, this is minimal but adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks details such as the format of the returned limit or any typical usage context. A more complete description could include that it returns the retention limit in days or similar.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'org' with description 'org'. The description does not add any additional meaning (e.g., whether it's a name or ID). Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. No extra value is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'GitHub Actions cache retention limit' scoped to an organization. It is distinct from sibling tools for enterprise and repository levels (e.g., github_actions_get_actions_cache_retention_limit_for_enterprise).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name implies organization-level scope, but the description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools exist for other scopes, but differentiation is only via naming.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read-only operation (Get), but without annotations, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. It is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words or information, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks information about the return value (e.g., the limit amount) since no output schema is provided. It is adequate for a simple retrieval but could be more complete by hinting at the response structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers both parameters (owner, repo) with descriptions. The description does not add meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get), the resource (GitHub Actions cache storage limit), and the scope (for a repository). It distinguishes from sibling tools that target enterprise or organization scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for a specific repository but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like the enterprise or organization variants, nor does it provide any context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'List' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose pagination details, rate limits, or whether it requires special permissions. Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with the action. Every word contributes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Minimal description for a listing tool with pagination and no output schema. Does not explain what 'cache usage' includes per repository. Adequate but lacks depth.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and descriptions. Baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'repositories with GitHub Actions cache usage' for an organization. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_actions_cache_usage (total usage) and get_actions_cache_list (cache entries) by specifying per-repo listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives. The purpose is implied by the name and description, but lacks exclusions or context for choosing this over other cache-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning consequences (e.g., immediate invalidation, impact on ongoing operations) or whether it's reversible. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. It is optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no parameters and no output schema, so the description is fairly complete in a minimal sense. However, it doesn't clarify which installation token is being revoked (likely the current one). This missing context could lead to ambiguity. A 3 is adequate but leaves room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter info because there are none. However, it doesn't explain why no parameters are needed (e.g., uses the current installation context). A 4 is appropriate as there's nothing to improve.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Revoke' and the resource 'installation access token'. This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_installation_access_token' or 'check_token'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the tool has no parameters, so usage is straightforward. No mention of prerequisites or contexts like 'when you need to invalidate the current token'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 indicates a read-only check (no side effects), but lacks details such as what the response indicates (e.g., boolean or detailed status) or whether it requires special permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the response contains (e.g., boolean, object). For a simple check tool, it is minimally complete but leaves the agent guessing about return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Check' and the resource 'permissions defined by a devcontainer', targeting the 'authenticated user'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like listing devcontainers or pre-flighting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. While the description implies usage for verifying permissions before starting a codespace, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately states the action and scope but does not disclose behavioral traits like safety (it removes restrictions), reversibility, or whether it requires specific permissions. The description is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no redundant information, and it is front-loaded with the key action and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but could be more complete. It does not explain what interaction restrictions are, any side effects, or prerequisite conditions. It covers the basic action and scope but lacks depth.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to add meaning. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate because the schema covers 100% of parameters (none). No additional parameter information is necessary.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the action (Remove), the resource (interaction restrictions), and the scope (from your public repositories). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like github_interactions_get_restrictions_for_authenticated_user and github_interactions_set_restrictions_for_authenticated_user, as well as org/repo variants.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this should be used after setting restrictions to clear them, or that it only affects the authenticated user's public repositories. The description lacks context about typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read-only operation, which is appropriate. However, it lacks details about what exactly is returned (e.g., core, search, or graphql limits) and whether authentication is required. With no annotations, more context would be helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no parameters, the description is adequate but not fully informative. It does not mention what rate limit status includes (e.g., remaining, reset time) or that it returns a JSON object. Since there is no output schema, adding a brief note about the response would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. The description correctly omits parameter details, as there are none. This is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'rate limit status', and the scope 'for the authenticated user'. It is specific and unambiguous, distinguishing this read-only tool from the many mutation tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where checking rate limits is necessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only check but does not explicitly state that it returns a boolean or discuss authentication, rate limits, or side effects. Minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words, front-loaded with the key action. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, and the description omits the return type. However, for a simple boolean check, the description is nearly complete. A minor gap is the lack of response details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are minimal ('owner', 'repo') and the description adds no further detail. However, parameter names are self-explanatory. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Check'), resource ('repository'), and scope ('by authenticated user'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like list or star/unstar operations, as it is a boolean check.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description is self-explanatory for a simple check, but could benefit from mentioning that it's a lightweight alternative to listing all starred repos.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects (none expected), required permissions, or rate limits. The description carries the full burden but only states the basic action, leaving the agent to infer safety and behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at 4 words, with no filler. It is front-loaded and every word is meaningful, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get operation with no input parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It could hint at the return value (e.g., 'app details'), but the minimal form suffices given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage. Since there are no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter context, meeting the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the authenticated app' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (the authenticated app). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'github_apps_get_by_slug' and 'github_apps_get_installation' by specifying the app context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing info about the currently authenticated app. No explicit when-not or alternatives are given, but for such a simple read operation, the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get all gitignore templates' is minimal and lacks details about authentication, rate limits, or the nature of the return value. However, for a simple read-only list operation, it is minimally adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of four words. It contains no unnecessary words and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is functionally complete. It adequately informs the agent that the tool retrieves a list of all gitignore templates. While it could mention that the result is a list, it is largely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% documentation coverage. According to the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter-specific information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get all gitignore templates' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all gitignore templates'. It effectively distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'github_gitignore_get_template' by using 'all', making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool should be used when all templates are needed, as opposed to the sibling tool for a specific template. While not explicitly stating when not to use it, the context of 'all' versus 'get_template' provides clear guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![github-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Eyalm321/github-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Eyalm321/github-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![github-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Eyalm321/github-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Eyalm321/github-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Eyalm321/github-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server