get_github_context

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 mentions the return value (connection or null), but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The verb 'get' implies non-destructive, but that is not explicit. More context about expected behavior is missing.

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, well-structured sentence that states the purpose and the key return condition without any filler. It is front-loaded and easy to 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what the agent can expect. It mentions returning a connection or null, but does not describe what the connection object contains (e.g., repo URL, owner). For a simple existence check this may suffice, but an agent wanting to use the connection details would need more info. The description is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, with both parameters ('teamId' and 'projectId') having clear descriptions about auto-filling from session. The tool description adds no extra parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 resource ('GitHub repository connection'), and the scope ('for a project'). It also notes the null return when no repo is connected, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project (project details) and get_repo_tree (repo contents). This is a specific, unambiguous definition.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like requiring an active session or a connected repo. No exclusions or alternative tools are named, so the agent has to infer appropriate usage from the name and context.

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