github-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing any side effects, idempotency, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response behavior. There is no mention of whether comments are appended, replaced, or require specific permissions, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing. Although brief, it efficiently communicates the core function without wasting words.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an underspecified parameter list, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or the context of when comments are appropriate. The simple one-liner is insufficient to fully support an autonomous agent in correctly invoking the tool and interpreting outcomes.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. The schema lists parameter names and types but lacks descriptions. The description offers no insight into the meaning of 'body', 'issue_number', 'owner', or 'repo', leaving the agent without sufficient information to construct a correct request.

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 action: 'Add a comment to an issue or pull request'. It uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('comment to an issue or pull request'), which unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like create_issue or update_issue. It also correctly broadens the scope to pull requests, matching the tool's name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or examples of appropriate use cases. While the operation is straightforward, the tool could be chosen over update_issue or other comment-related actions, but no such differentiation is given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'create a new branch' and does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, behavior when the branch already exists, or the role of the optional from_branch parameter. This leaves significant ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and easy to read. However, it is perhaps too minimal, as it omits critical parameter information, but conciseness itself is good.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain the meaning of from_branch, how branch creation works, any error conditions, or the return value. This is essentially a bare minimum definition.

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 0%, meaning the description must compensate for the lack of parameter explanations. The description provides no information about owner, repo, branch, or from_branch. Even the schema itself lacks descriptions, so the agent is left without any semantic guidance for these parameters.

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 action ('Create') and the resource ('a new branch in a repository'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_branch and list_branches, and the phrase 'in a repository' differentiates it from create_repo.

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 usage scenario: creating a new branch in a repository. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating a pull request or listing branches, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, permission requirements, validation behavior, or any safety considerations. For a mutation tool, this is inadequate.

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 very short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It is a complete sentence but misses critical information needed for correct tool usage.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover required parameters, usage examples, or expected behavior, making it inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter details. It does not explain the meaning or purpose of owner, repo, title, body, labels, or assignees, leaving the agent without guidance beyond raw parameter names.

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 'Create a new issue' clearly states the action (create) and resource (issue). It distinguishes from siblings like update_issue, though it lacks additional context such as 'in a repository', which is inferred from required parameters owner and repo.

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 vs alternatives. It does not mention exclusion criteria, prerequisites, or relationships with update_issue or get_issue.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the action. It does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files), required permissions, or error behavior, providing no additional transparency beyond the tool's 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, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits critical information needed for correct invocation, so the brevity is detrimental rather than useful.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too thin to enable correct use. It lacks any mention of parameter relationships, default branch behavior, return values, or side effects, making it wholly incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them. The meaning of parameters like 'sha', 'branch', and 'message' is left entirely to the agent, with no compensation for the schema's lack of detail.

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 verb 'Create or update' and the resource 'a file in a repository', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_file or delete_file. However, it lacks any qualifiers about scope or conditions, so it does not fully differentiate from all possible alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_file or delete_file. It does not mention prerequisites like branch existence or the need to supply a SHA for updates, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutating action ('create') but does not disclose side effects, permissions, required access levels, or any other behavioral context. This is minimal at best.

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 very short, but it simply restates the tool name and provides no added value. It fails to earn its place because it duplicates the name without contributing any helpful detail or structure.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain required fields, branch relationships, draft behavior, or what the response will be. The tool is not usable from the description alone.

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 0% with 7 parameters, and the description provides no parameter semantics whatsoever. It does not explain what base, head, draft, owner, repo, or title mean, leaving the agent with no additional meaning beyond raw schema types.

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 'Create a new pull request' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_pull_requests, get_pull_request, and merge_pull_request. It is unambiguous and directly states the tool's function.

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, nor any prerequisites or context. The description relies entirely on the tool's name to imply usage, with no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it creates a repository, but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., whether it makes an API call, sets default branches, affects user settings), permission requirements, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 one simple sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is extremely terse, essentially restating the tool name with minimal elaboration. While not verbose, it lacks the informative structure expected for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the response looks like, what side effects occur, or how to handle required versus optional parameters. The description is minimal and leaves the agent guessing about important operational details.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no additional meaning for the parameters. It doesn't mention the 'name' requirement, the 'private' default, or what 'auto_init' does. The description adds no value beyond the bare schema field names.

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 'Create a new GitHub repository' clearly states the specific action (create) and resource (GitHub repository). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_repos, get_repo, and update_repo by indicating the exact operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify whether to use create_repo for organization repositories or personal ones, or how it relates to create_pull_request.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'delete' without explaining the permanence of the deletion, potential failure conditions (e.g., branch not found, protected branch), required permissions, or what the response will contain. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and directly states the core action, achieving high efficiency for the minimal content it conveys.

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?

As a destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description must provide context about side effects, return values, errors, and safe usage. It only states the basic action, leaving the agent without essential operational details.

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 0% and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (owner, repo, branch) or clarify their semantics beyond the schema fields. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already shows.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Delete a branch from a repository'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_branches, create_branch, or delete_file. The action and target are unambiguous.

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, nor are there any usage exclusions or prerequisites. The description fails to mention important restrictions like inability to delete the default branch or protected branches.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action but fails to disclose that the operation creates a commit, requires the current file SHA, or is irreversible. No detail on side effects or error conditions.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is concise but lacks necessary detail; however, conciseness is appropriate for the overall simplicity of the description.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-sentence description is completely inadequate. It omits critical context such as commit requirements, SHA validation, and branch behavior, making it difficult for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter information. It does not explain the role of message, sha, branch, or other fields. Without compensation from the description, the parameter semantics are entirely unclear.

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 'Delete a file from a repository' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_file or create_or_update_file. It unambiguously states the tool's core function.

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 context or guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or edge cases (e.g., handling branches, required SHA).

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. However, it merely repeats the name's implication of a read operation without disclosing details about required authentication scopes, rate limits, or the shape of the returned data. This is minimal behavioral transparency.

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 that front-loads the verb and object. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary verbosity.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate—it states what the tool does. However, it lacks details about the structure of the returned information or authentication requirements, which could be important for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

With zero parameters, there are no parameter semantics to explain. The schema covers 100% of parameters (trivially), and the description doesn't need to add parameter details. Consistent with the baseline for 0-param tools.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('info about the authenticated GitHub user'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on the authenticated user, which is unique among the listed 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context, leaving the agent without information on appropriate use cases beyond the obvious.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without revealing important traits such as how file contents are returned (raw text vs base64), behavior for missing files, or default branch handling. This is a minimal disclosure for a file retrieval tool.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, clearly stating what the tool does.

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 annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't mention the return value format, default behavior for the optional branch parameter, or potential error conditions. For a tool with 4 parameters, more contextual detail is needed to guide correct invocation.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameter semantics. It only says 'from a repository' and 'file', vaguely implying owner/repo and path, but it doesn't clarify optionality of branch or the meaning of each parameter. The description adds no value beyond the schema property names.

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 action ('Get the contents') and the resource ('a file from a repository'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_directory (lists files) and get_repo (repository metadata), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage is implied by the description—use when you need file contents—but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives (e.g., using search_code to find files). No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get', which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling, authorization requirements, or return format. This is minimal disclosure.

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, clear sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for a simple get operation.

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 does not provide enough context about the return value or any preconditions. It is too sparse to fully inform an agent.

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 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the parameters (owner, repo, issue_number). It adds no semantic value beyond the schema's property names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('specific issue'), clearly indicating a retrieval operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_pull_request, though the singular 'specific' hints at single-item retrieval.

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. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read operation but does not disclose what 'details' includes (e.g., commits, reviews, files), authentication requirements, or potential errors. For a tool with no annotations, this is minimal behavioral transparency.

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, brief sentence that earns its place, but it lacks any additional structure like parameter explanations. It is concise but at the cost of useful detail.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite sparse. It explains the tool's basic purpose but not the return payload, error conditions, or nuance like which pull request fields are returned. For a simple read tool, it is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description adds no param-specific meaning beyond what property names suggest ('owner', 'repo', 'pull_number'). It does not clarify formats (e.g., owner/repo names, pull number type) or relationships, so the agent must infer from names alone.

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 'Get details of a specific pull request' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('pull request'), clearly indicating a read operation for a single pull request. It distinguishes from siblings like list_pull_requests and merge_pull_request, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 usage when a specific pull request's details are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives. The sibling list_pull_requests suggests there is a list variant, but the description doesn't contrast them, leaving some ambiguity.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. The word 'get' signals a read-only operation, which is a key behavior, but it does not disclose other details such as return format, authentication requirements, or any limitations. The basic read nature is evident, but not comprehensive.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and perfectly sized for a simple GET operation.

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?

For a simple tool, the description covers the basic purpose, but it is incomplete in explaining what 'details' means, what the response looks like, or how this tool fits among the many sibling tools. With no output schema and no annotations, more context would be valuable, especially given the broader API context.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for unclear parameters. However, it does not mention 'owner' or 'repo' at all, leaving the agent to rely on the property names alone. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 retrieves details for a specific repository. The verb 'get' and resource 'specific repository' are specific, and it naturally differentiates from sibling list_repos by focusing on a single repo rather than listing many.

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 phrase 'specific repository' implies usage when you have a known repository, contrasting with list_repos for browsing. While no explicit exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or response format. The minimal disclosure does not meet the burden placed by the absence of annotations.

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, focused sentence that conveys the core purpose without redundancy. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded for a simple list operation.

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 annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse to be contextually complete. It provides no information about the expected response structure or broader usage context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'owner' and 'repo' at all. The phrase 'in a repository' implies repository identity but does not clarify the roles of these fields, leaving the agent without sufficient meaning beyond raw parameter names.

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 'List branches in a repository' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_repos or list_commits. The scope is unambiguous and matches the tool's name.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_repos or get_repo. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('list') but fails to mention pagination (per_page), branch filtering, or response format. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is succinct and front-loaded, making it easy to quickly parse.

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 description is too sparse for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations. It does not mention return values, pagination, filtering, or any behavior that would help an agent invoke the tool correctly. This is a significant gap.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. It does not clarify what owner, repo, branch, or per_page mean or how they affect the result. The description adds no value beyond the parameter names.

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's function: 'List commits in a repository'. It names a specific resource (commits) and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_repos or list_branches, which target different resources.

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 mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention branch filtering or prerequisites. The intended use is only implied by the name, which is insufficient.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not disclose details such as error behavior on non-existent paths, whether entries include only names or full metadata, or how empty path and branch parameters behave. The description adds the repository context but lacks deeper behavioral information.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise, stating exactly what the tool does.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to guide correct invocation. It does not explain parameter semantics, return values, or how to specify a nested directory vs. the repository root. Sibling tools like get_file exist, but the description does not help an agent choose between them.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. It does not clarify that 'path' is a directory path relative to the repo root, that 'branch' is optional, or the format of owner/repo. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema detail.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'contents of a directory in a repository'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_repos (repositories) and list_branches (branches).

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 provides clear context: use this tool when you need to list a directory's contents within a repository. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_file, but the intended scenario is unambiguous.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'List issues' and does not disclose the default state ('open'), pagination behavior, or what fields are returned. This leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 very short, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does not earn its place by adding information. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks return value expectations, filtering defaults, pagination semantics, and differentiation from sibling search/list tools. For a straightforward list endpoint, more context is needed for reliable selection and invocation.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the raw parameter names. It does not explain owner, repo, state, or per_page, nor does it note defaults like state=open or per_page=30.

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 'List issues in a repository' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a collection operation. It distinguishes from siblings like get_issue (single issue) and create_issue (creation).

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_issues or get_issue. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or distribution of work among sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states a generic list action. It doesn't note that only open pull requests are returned by default, that pagination applies via per_page, or that authentication may be required.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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?

Despite the tool's low complexity, the complete lack of output schema and annotations means the description must compensate. It doesn't cover the meaning or defaults of the state and per_page parameters, making it insufficient for correct invocation in varied scenarios.

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 0% and the description contributes no parameter explanations. It doesn't clarify how owner, repo, state, or per_page should be used, leaving the agent to rely on names and defaults alone.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'pull requests in a repository', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_pull_request and list_issues. The scope is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over get_pull_request, list_issues, or other list tools. It does not mention state filtering, pagination, or any exclusions, so the agent receives no usage direction.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function and does not mention that it is read-only, requires authentication, returns paginated results, or any other behavioral traits. The word 'List' implies read-only, but no explicit context is added.

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, direct sentence: 'List your GitHub repositories.' It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains no redundancy, and every word is necessary.

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 is simple and the schema covers parameters, but the description lacks information about return format (e.g., array of repository objects) and when to use it in contrast to sibling list tools. It is adequate for a basic list action but leaves notable gaps.

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 description does not mention any of the three parameters. The input schema provides names and enum values, but no natural language descriptions. With 0% schema coverage in the description, it fails to compensate for the lack of parameter explanation.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('your GitHub repositories'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_repo (specific repo) and list_branches (branches).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose pagination behavior (per_page param), default ordering, response format, or any side effects. 'List recent runs' implies a read operation but lacks concrete behavioral detail.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing critical contextual details, so it is concise but under-specified.

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?

For a tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not mention required parameters, return values, or pagination, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it reliably.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. 'For a workflow' hints at workflow_id but leaves owner, repo, and per_page undefined.

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 action (list) and the resource (recent runs for a workflow). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'list_workflows' by specifying runs, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions. It is a single statement of purpose with no contextual advice.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic list operation. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any required permissions, or any limitations such as pagination.

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 one short sentence, containing only the essential action and scope. No filler or redundancy.

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 is a simple list operation, but with no output schema or annotations, the description could provide more detail about what is returned or any filtering options. However, given the simplicity, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks contextual richness.

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 schema has two parameters (owner, repo) with zero descriptions. The description only says 'in a repository', which vaguely implies these parameters define the repository, but it does not explain the meaning of each parameter or their formats.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('GitHub Actions workflows') with repository scope. It clearly distinguishes from sibling `list_workflow_runs` which targets workflow runs, not workflow definitions.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `list_workflow_runs` or `trigger_workflow`. The description only states the action without context or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Merge a pull request' only implies mutation without detailing side effects, such as whether the merge is irreversible, how it handles conflicts, what permissions are needed, or what response is returned. This is insufficient for a mutation tool, matching the update_drive example that scored 2.

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 an efficient single sentence: 'Merge a pull request.' It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. However, it is minimal but not under-specified to the point of being tautological. This aligns with an efficient single-sentence description, scoring 4.

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 5 parameters, 3 required, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is just four words, providing no information about return values, side effects, parameter semantics, or use cases. Given the moderate complexity, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. Score 1.

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 0%, meaning the input schema provides no description for any of the 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever; it does not explain the role of owner, repo, pull_number, merge_method, or commit_message. Since the description must compensate for low schema coverage and fails to do so, a score of 1 is warranted.

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 'Merge a pull request' uses a specific verb ('merge') and resource ('pull request'), clearly identifying the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pull_request or create_pull_request, though it offers no additional scoping or detail. This is clear and unambiguous, justifying a 4.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., CI passing, required reviews) or any conditions for merging. Sibling tools like create_pull_request or get_pull_request are not referenced, leaving the usage context entirely unclear. Score 2 per 'no guidance.'

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only mentions scoping to your repositories but does not disclose read-only nature, return format, pagination behavior, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 one clear sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for its purpose.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits return value descriptions, pagination details, and any prerequisites, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for 'query' or 'per_page'. It doesn't explain query syntax, what per_page controls, or how they interact, leaving the agent without any parameter guidance beyond schema types.

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 uses a specific verb 'search' and identifies the resource 'code' with the scope 'across your GitHub repositories'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool search_issues, which is for issue search.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need to find code in GitHub repositories. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the scope is clear enough for an agent to infer.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only restates the purpose. It fails to mention authentication requirements, rate limits, result sorting, or that it searches all accessible repositories rather than a specific one.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, so it does not fully earn its place despite being concise.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the tool description is highly incomplete. It lacks context on use cases, search semantics, return values, and interaction with sibling search tools.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the query or per_page parameters. There is no information about query syntax, accepted formats, or how per_page affects results.

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 'Search issues and pull requests across repositories' specifies a clear action (search), a distinct resource (issues and pull requests), and a scope (across repositories). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_issues (repo-scoped) and search_code (code search).

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 choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or comparative scenarios with siblings like list_issues or search_code.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action itself. It does not mention side effects (e.g., creating a workflow run), required permissions, authentication requirements, or potential errors like invalid refs or non-existent workflows. For a mutating tool, this is insufficient.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the main purpose. It is concise and well-structured, though it would benefit from additional essential details; however, conciseness itself is strong.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters (4 required), a nested object, and no annotations or output schema, this description is critically incomplete. It does not explain the input parameters, expected behavior, or any contextual details needed for correct usage, going far beyond simple under-specification.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It fails to do so: it offers no insight into the meaning of 'ref', 'workflow_id', 'owner', 'repo', or 'inputs'. The agent is left to infer everything from parameter names alone.

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 uses a specific verb, 'trigger', and a clear resource, 'a GitHub Actions workflow', making the core purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_workflows and list_workflow_runs by focusing on the action of triggering, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools for comparison.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like first locating the workflow_id with list_workflows. The usage is only implied by the verb 'trigger', but there is no explicit context or exclusion of similar operations.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing issue' does not reveal whether updates are partial or full, whether required parameters (owner, repo, issue_number) must all be supplied, what side effects occur (e.g., notifications), or whether the operation is idempotent. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence, which is concise. However, it is so short that it omits important context, such as which fields can be updated or any behavioral notes. It earns its place as a clear purpose statement but under-delivers on informative content, so a middle score is appropriate.

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?

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify return values, error conditions, partial update behavior, or the need to pass all required parameters. The schema and sibling tool names provide some context, but the description itself is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly in all cases.

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 lists 8 parameters with names and types, but the description offers no additional meaning. It fails to explain that 'body' likely replaces the issue description, 'state' can be 'open' or 'closed', or that 'labels' and 'assignees' are arrays. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it doesn't, leaving the agent to infer semantics from parameter names alone.

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 'Update an existing issue' clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (an existing issue). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_issue' and 'comment_on_issue' by focusing on modifying an existing record, though it doesn't enumerate which fields can be changed.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like changing the state of an issue, reassigning labels, or editing the title/body, nor does it suggest any prerequisites or exclusions. A clear context or explicit alternative would be needed for a higher score.

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