github_security_advisories_create_private_vulnerability_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'privately report' without disclosing behavioral traits such as confidentiality, notification triggers, required permissions, or how the report is processed.

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, efficient and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity.

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 tool has a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits details about expected response, successful outcome, or error conditions.

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 descriptions are trivial (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning about the body structure, required fields, or format. The agent cannot infer how to properly construct the request body.

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 'Privately report a security vulnerability' clearly states the action and resource. The tool name is specific and distinguishes it from similar sibling tools like create_repository_advisory. However, it lacks elaboration on what 'privately' entails (e.g., not public disclosure).

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 like create_repository_advisory or create_fork. The agent has no context for decision-making.

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