github_actions_get_github_actions_permissions_repository

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Does 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.