github_issues_check_user_can_be_assigned

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the call is read-only, what the response format is, or any side effects. The agent is left without understanding the tool's behavior beyond its name.

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 sentence, which is concise but overly terse. It lacks essential information and feels more like a placeholder than a useful description. It does not earn its place as it adds little beyond the tool name.

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 output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, error), what 'assigned' means in this context, or any edge cases. The agent cannot fully understand the tool's purpose and 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions ('owner', 'repo', 'assignee'), but these are trivial. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameters (e.g., format of assignee). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema covers the basics.

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 user can be assigned' is vague and does not specify the context (e.g., to an issue). The sibling tool 'github_issues_check_user_can_be_assigned_to_issue' suggests a different scope, but this description fails to differentiate. The input schema lacks an issue parameter, hinting it might be a general check, but the description does not clarify.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over the sibling 'github_issues_check_user_can_be_assigned_to_issue', nor does it mention prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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