github_code_security_get_configuration_for_repository

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Does the description explain 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.