Build-in-Public: connection status

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false. The description reinforces this with 'Never mutates anything' and 'CAPABILITY: read — side-effect-free.' It also discloses the full return shape, including reset semantics like mode defaults, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction with 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: a front-loaded READ-ONLY summary, a complete field listing with inline explanations, concrete use cases, a mutation guarantee, and a sibling relationship note. It packs substantial value without 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by fully enumerating the response structure, including nested objects (repos, lastDraft) and explained enums (mode, postMode). It also links to list_approvals for related pending drafts, making it contextually complete for a status tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. Per the rubric, 0 params baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful output semantics (fields and their meanings), but no parameter-specific guidance is needed. It does not detract from parameter understanding.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'READ-ONLY status of the org's Build-in-Public GitHub connection.' It clearly specifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like build_in_public_connect_link (which generates the connect link) by listing concrete use cases such as verifying setup and checking the latest draft.

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?

Explicit usage context is provided: 'Use it to answer "is build-in-public set up?", to verify a connect link the user was given actually got completed, or to see the latest draft.' It also gives an alternative for a related task: 'Drafts awaiting review also appear in list_approvals under source build-in-public.' This directly guides when to use this tool versus a sibling.

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