github_actions_get_repo_public_key

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Does 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.