plan_oss_pr_opportunity_scout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with the description's 'Rank' and 'scout' verbs. The description adds a behavioral constraint ('without spammy drive-by contributions') but no technical details about rate limits, permissions, or side effects beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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 that efficiently conveys purpose, scope, and a key constraint. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Minor wordiness ('proof-backed issue, bounty, and PR opportunities') but no redundant content.

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 and 4 parameters with full schema descriptions. However, the description does not explain the return format, ranking criteria, or how 'proof-backed' is determined. Given the tool's planning nature, more context on output structure and evaluation logic is needed for an agent to use it effectively.

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 description coverage is 100% (all four parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add any extra meaning or context to the parameters, leaving the schema to fully explain them. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds no additional semantic value.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Rank'), resource ('upstream GitHub repositories ThumbGate depends on'), and purpose ('for proof-backed issue, bounty, and PR opportunities'). It also distinguishes itself by explicitly stating it avoids 'spammy drive-by contributions', setting it apart from similar scouting tools.

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?

The description implies the tool should be used for legitimate, non-spammy opportunities but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'plan_agent_design_governance' or 'plan_context_footprint'. No when-not-to-use criteria or alternative tool references are given.

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