health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears all responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains nothing about side effects, permissions, or operational details. Without annotations, this total absence of behavioral information is a critical gap.

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 technically concise (one word), but it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It omits essential information, making it a placeholder rather than a useful definition. This is not the kind of conciseness that earns credit.

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's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot determine the tool's purpose, invocation requirements, or expected behavior. This is an incomplete definition on every front.

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, yet the description explains none of them. It does not clarify what 'repository_id' means, what the optional fields like 'actor' or 'request_id' signify, or how they affect the call. The description adds nothing beyond the raw schema 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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or how it differs from alternatives. The description contains no context, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools like 'status' or 'job'. It gives the agent no basis for selecting this tool over others.

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