github_gists_check_is_starred

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided. Description does not disclose behavioral traits: it does not state that it is read-only, requires authentication, or returns a boolean. Minimal transparency beyond the basic 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?

Extremely concise single-sentence description, front-loaded with the key action. However, it could include the return type without sacrificing 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 simple tool (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks essential detail about return value (boolean). An agent needs to know the output format to use the tool correctly.

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?

Only one parameter (gist_id) with 100% schema coverage. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'gist_id' label. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter.

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 'Check if a gist is starred' is a clear verb+resource statement. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_starred, star, and unstar by specifically focusing on checking starred status.

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 vs alternatives (e.g., list_starred for batch checks). No mention of context like requirement for authentication or that it is a read-only check. Usage is implied but no explicit when/why not.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.