github_repos_check_collaborator

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Check if a user is a repository collaborator,' implying a read operation with no side effects, but does not describe return value, error handling, or authorization requirements.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Efficient but lacks front-loading of key behavioral info.

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?

Tool is simple but lacks output schema. Description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean or error). For a check tool, return value is critical. Incomplete for agent to know how to interpret result.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter described as 'owner', 'repo', 'username'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond these trivial labels. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool checks if a user is a repository collaborator, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like add_collaborator, remove_collaborator, list_collaborators, and get_collaborator_permission_level. However, it lacks mention of the return type (e.g., boolean) or scope.

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 (e.g., list_collaborators or get_collaborator_permission_level). No context on prerequisites or conditions for use.

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