github_checks_list_annotations

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.