github_apps_get_user_installation

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.