github_interactions_get_restrictions_for_repo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get interaction restrictions' without stating that it is a read-only operation, what the response contains, or any permissions or rate limits. This is insufficient for an agent to understand 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 concise sentence of 5 words, front-loaded with the key action and resource. While efficient, it could be slightly expanded with useful context without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the return value includes (e.g., the list of restrictions, their format). It also lacks context about the scope being repo-level vs inherited org restrictions. The description is incomplete for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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% as both parameters (owner, repo) have descriptions, albeit minimal ('owner', 'repo'). The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline 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 clearly states 'Get interaction restrictions for a repository', specifying the verb (Get), resource (interaction restrictions), and scope (repository). It distinguishes from sibling tools for org and authenticated user by explicitly mentioning 'repository'. However, it lacks a brief definition of what interaction restrictions are.

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 like get_restrictions_for_org or get_restrictions_for_authenticated_user. The description does not provide criteria for choosing between scopes or mention any prerequisites.

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