GitHub MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation2/5
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as github_list_repos, github_list_user_repos, and github_list_org_repos, where the first already supports owner filtering. Similarly, close_issue and close_pr duplicate the state-changing capabilities of update_issue and update_pr, creating ambiguity about the preferred tool. While descriptions are clear, the boundaries between these tools are not distinct enough for an agent to reliably choose.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent 'github_verb_noun' pattern using snake_case, such as github_list_repos, github_create_branch, and github_merge_pr. The prefix and verb-first structure are uniform across the entire set, making the naming highly predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count1/5
With 73 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical 3-15 tool range and even the 50+ extreme threshold. Many tools are redundant or could be consolidated (e.g., repo listing variants, close vs update), inflating the count and overwhelming agents with too many choices.
Completeness3/5
The server provides broad coverage across repos, branches, files, PRs, issues, workflows, releases, users, search, gists, and notifications. However, notable gaps exist, such as lack of commit history APIs, no update for gists or releases, and no PR review submission, which are significant for a complete GitHub lifecycle.
Average 3.6/5 across 73 of 73 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
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 whether the list is sorted, paginated, whether empty repos return empty lists, what the output format is (though output schema exists), or any read-only characterization. The conflation of topics/tags adds 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and compact, but the Args block duplicates what the schema already provides without adding value. The format is acceptable but the content is thin; it is concise but under-informative rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is very thin for a GitHub tool. It does not clarify the topics/tags distinction (critical given github_list_tags exists), mention pagination limits (topics have a 20-topic limit on GitHub), or explain edge cases for empty lists. For a tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the three parameters. The description lists parameter names in an Args block but adds no meaning beyond the names themselves. It does not explain what owner/repo must be (e.g., URL-encoded, case-sensitivity) or what session_name does (though it has a default). The Args block merely echoes the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get repository topics/tags' which identifies the verb (get) and resource (repository topics/tags). However, it conflates 'topics' and 'tags' which are distinct GitHub concepts, and the sibling github_list_tags exists for tags. This creates ambiguity about whether it returns topics, tags, or both.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not distinguish from github_list_tags or github_update_topics, nor does it clarify whether to use this for viewing topics vs tags. There is no mention of when this is appropriate versus sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. The description does not state what happens after disconnecting (are credentials deleted? is the session token revoked? does it affect github_status?). For a state-changing operation on a connection, the side effects and reversibility are entirely undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief - a one-line purpose statement plus a compact parameter docstring. No wasted words or redundant content. It's front-loaded with the core purpose before the parameter detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and simple parameter set, this is a state-changing tool (disconnect) paired with its counterpart (github_connect). The description doesn't explain return values, side effects on credentials, session lifecycle, or error cases. Given the tool has 70+ siblings and relates to authentication state, more guidance is warranted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, meaning the description must compensate. The description does mention the session_name parameter inline ('Name of the session to disconnect'), which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, this is minimal value since the schema already provides the parameter name and a default value. The description adds only the brief semantic of what the parameter selects.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Disconnect a GitHub session') which makes the basic purpose clear. However, it doesn't distinguish this from github_connect or github_status in terms of what 'disconnect' means (e.g., does it remove credentials, end auth, revoke the token?). The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what disconnecting actually does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 versus alternatives like github_connect or github_save_credentials. The description doesn't clarify whether this is needed before reconnecting, whether it invalidates stored credentials, or any prerequisites. For a semantic opposite of github_connect, it should clarify the relationship.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 disclosing behavior. It only restates the action ('get gist content and details') without mentioning read-only nature, return format, authentication needs, or rate limits. The Args section adds minimal parameter context but no tool-level behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise and front-loaded with the purpose, but the Args section duplicates the input schema, making it redundant. The plain-text structure is simple, but it loses efficiency points for repeating information already available in the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists and covers return values, the description lacks contextual completeness. It does not explain what a gist is, how to retrieve a gist ID, or how this tool relates to list_gists. The tool is simple, but the description's minimalism leaves gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate, but the Args block simply restates the schema titles: 'Gist ID' and 'GitHub session to use'. This adds no meaningful detail about value formats, examples, or how to obtain a gist_id, leaving the agent under-informed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get gist content and details' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like github_list_gists and github_create_gist. It implies fetching a single gist by ID, which is confirmed by the gist_id parameter in the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 versus alternatives such as github_list_gists or github_get_file. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide between similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 implies a read-only operation but does not explain what 'details' includes, whether authentication or specific permissions are needed, or how the response is structured. The minimal description adds little 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single front-loaded sentence and no fluff. However, the parameter list duplicates the input schema, which is redundant, though it does not harm efficiency. Overall structure is acceptable but not exemplary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's context among many workflow-related siblings, the description is too sparse. It lacks usage context, behavioral details, and parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema partially compensates for missing return-value descriptions, but the description still fails to provide the operational context an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 parameter names already visible in the input schema. It simply lists owner, repo, run_id, and session_name without explaining their roles or any constraints, so the agent gets no value from the description in understanding parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific workflow run'), which clearly indicates the tool's function. While it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like github_list_workflow_runs or github_get_run_logs, the verb-resource combination is distinct enough to differentiate it from list and action-oriented tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There are no prerequisites, no mention of when a user would need a run_id, and no comparison with sibling tools such as list_workflow_runs or get_run_logs, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't mention whether this returns commit counts sorted, whether pagination exists beyond max_results, what the output format looks like, or whether it requires authentication/permissions. The mention of 'commit counts' adds some value but leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact in an Args-style format, but it mostly restates parameter names from the schema. The single functional sentence 'List repository contributors with commit counts' is efficient, but the Args block adds little value and could be trimmed or enriched.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, return values may be documented there. However, the tool's purpose is simple enough that 0% schema coverage for 4 params is a real gap. The description doesn't explain max_results semantics fully (does it truncate? sort?), session behavior, or error cases. A bit more context would improve completeness for a list-style tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description repeats parameter names with minimal elaboration. It adds 'default: 30' for max_results which mirrors the schema's default. It doesn't clarify the session_name semantics beyond 'GitHub session to use', which adds little beyond the schema. With 4 params at 0% coverage, the description should compensate more.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List repository contributors with commit counts' with a specific verb+resource. The purpose is distinct from siblings like list_repos or list_branches, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from other list operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives is provided. There's no mention of when contributors would be needed, no exclusions, and no indication of alternatives for related data (e.g., list_repos vs contributors).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 does not mention that this is a read-only operation, what data is returned, whether authentication is required, or any rate limits, so the agent is left without important safety or effect information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence followed by a minimal parameter list. It contains no filler or redundant content, making it appropriately concise, though it sacrifices valuable explanatory detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, but the description is incomplete for an agent: it offers no usage guidance, no behavioral transparency, and no parameter semantics beyond names. The output schema exists but does not replace missing context about when and why to use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only lists parameter names without any elaboration. 'owner', 'repo', and 'issue_number' are somewhat self-explanatory, but 'session_name' is ambiguous and not explained in either the description or schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets detailed information about an issue, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from github_list_issues or github_get_pr, but the focus on a single issue with 'detailed information' makes it distinguishable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 versus alternatives like github_list_issues or github_get_pr. No prerequisites, exclusions, or example scenarios are provided, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is written as an Args-style listing, essentially mirroring the parameter names without adding behavioral context. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., the fork is created asynchronously on GitHub, no webhook/callback), permissions needed, or what happens on conflict. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but adds minimal beyond parameter semantics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact: a single purpose sentence followed by an Args block. The Args block is largely redundant with the input schema, which already documents each parameter. It is not padded, but it is not particularly front-loaded either, and the args list adds little informational value beyond the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, which reduces the need to document return values, but the description is thin for a mutation tool with no annotations. Given the many sibling tools in the github_* family (including create_repo, delete_repo), the description does not clarify the relationship between 'create repo' and 'fork repo' beyond the obvious. Provides no guidance on auth/connection prerequisites (e.g., does it require an active session?).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists each parameter in Args style with a brief inline phrase (e.g., 'empty = your personal account', 'empty = keep original name'). These inline notes genuinely add semantics beyond the schema's default markers, clarifying the empty-string defaults for org and new_name. However, session_name simply says 'GitHub session to use', which adds little beyond its name. Meaningful but modest value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
'Fork a repository to your account or an organization' uses a specific verb (fork) with a clear resource (repository) and destination (account/org). It clearly communicates the tool's action. However, among the many sibling tools it does not explicitly distinguish itself beyond the verb itself, though the verb 'fork' is distinct enough given siblings are create/delete/update/get.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. It does not mention that forking copies a repo for independent modification, when to prefer github_create_repo over forking, or any prerequisite such as needing an authenticated/active session. The sibling list is large and includes github_create_repo, so explicit guidance on choosing fork vs create would be valuable but is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 does not mention the default max_results=30 pagination cap, whether results are paginated, authentication requirements, or how the GitHub session is selected. The behavior around the default limit is a meaningful disclosure that's absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Compact and reasonably structured with an Args section. The Args line-per-parameter format is readable and efficient. No wasted sentences, though it could briefly mention the default pagination behavior to earn a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return format need not be explained. However, the tool lacks annotations, has 0% schema description coverage, and the description omits behavioral details like the default 30-result cap and pagination semantics. For a simple listing tool this is adequate but not rich; the undocumented pagination behavior is the main gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters with one-line meanings (owner: Repository owner, max_results: Maximum branches to return), which adds some value over the schema's bare titles. However, it doesn't explain valid formats, differences between max_results and pagination, or how session_name selects among sessions. Partial compensation for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List all branches in a repository' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like github_get_branch (single branch) and github_list_tags (tags), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. Among many branch/tag tools, 'branches in a repository' is clear enough to differentiate from the other list operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that github_get_branch retrieves a single branch, or when listing is preferred. The description simply states the operation with no usage context, prerequisites, or alternative references. With 74 sibling tools, this is a notable gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as permanence of deletion, failure conditions for protected or default branches, or effects on open pull requests. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does not address these safety or side-effect aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the core action, and has a simple structured argument list. It wastes no words, though it sacrifices depth for brevity. For such a simple tool, the length is appropriate, but it could use the space to add nuance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple delete operation, but the description omits important context like restrictions (protected/default branches) and what happens after deletion. The output schema exists, so return values are avoided, but the description does not fully cover the operation's context given no annotations and a 0% schema description coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists parameters with terse one-liners like 'owner: Repository owner' and 'repo: Repository name', which add minimal meaning beyond the parameter names in the schema. The schema itself has no descriptions, so the description should compensate but does not provide meaningful detail, especially for 'session_name' which is only described as 'GitHub session to use'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a branch from a repository.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes this tool from sibling branch tools like list, get, create, and protect. It is immediately obvious what action is performed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 that this only deletes a branch, not the repository, nor does it note any restrictions like protected branches or default branch limitations. There is no context about prerequisites or preferred invocation scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 does not mention that re-running consumes GitHub Actions minutes, creates a new workflow run, or requires write permissions. It also implies a selection capability ('all jobs or only failed jobs') that is not reflected in the input schema, creating an unstated and potentially misleading behavioral trait.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with a clear one-line summary, followed by a neat Args block. Each sentence earns its place, though the Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema's property titles. Overall structure is efficient and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
As a mutation tool with no annotations, the description should disclose side effects, permissions, and the fact that a re-run creates a new run. It fails to do so, and the 'all jobs or only failed jobs' ambiguity further undermines completeness. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the missing operational context is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides basic meanings for each parameter (e.g., 'Workflow run ID to re-run'), which adds slight value over the schema titles. However, it omits details about session_name's default/usage and does not clarify how the 'all jobs vs failed' behavior is controlled, leaving a semantic gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Re-run a workflow') and the target resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'github_trigger_workflow' (which starts a new run) and 'github_cancel_workflow_run' (which cancels). However, the phrase 'all jobs or only failed jobs' introduces ambiguity about how the scope is selected, since no parameter exists for that choice.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 prerequisites such as the run existing or having failed. It also fails to note that re-running a successful run might be undesirable, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states credentials are saved 'to disk cache' which discloses the persistence mechanism, a useful detail. However, it does not disclose security implications of storing a token to disk, whether re-saving overwrites existing credentials, or whether credentials are encrypted. For a credential-management tool with zero annotation coverage, more disclosure is warranted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and efficient, using a single opening sentence plus a clean args list. Every line earns its place. It front-loads the purpose clearly. No filler or padding, though it could arguably be slightly longer to cover behavioral details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a credential-saving tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose and lists all parameters. However, it omits behavioral context like overwrite semantics, security warnings, and interaction with the github_connect sibling. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, this is adequate but leaves notable gaps around security and caching behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It lists each parameter with a brief phrase (name, token, API URL, clone protocol), which adds minimal naming context but does add the crucial detail that 'protocol' accepts 'ssh' or 'https'. However, these are near-repeats of the schema titles and lack format hints, validation notes, or default meanings beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Save GitHub credentials to disk cache for future use' with a specific verb (save) and resource (GitHub credentials). It distinguishes this from siblings by the credential-storage purpose, though it doesn't explicitly contrast it with github_connect (which likely establishes an active connection). Overall clear purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is the setup step before using other GitHub tools, but there are no explicit when/when-not instructions or mention of alternatives. It does not say to use github_connect vs this, or whether this is a prerequisite for other tools. No exclusions or misdirection, but guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it is minimal. It does not mention that this is a write operation (though 'Add' implies it), any authentication requirements, session prerequisites, or potential side effects. The description carries a low burden for a mutation tool, leaving significant transparency gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a single sentence followed by a compact Args list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no filler or verbosity. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., using a formatted list), but it remains efficient and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple CRUD tool, the description provides the core action and arguments, but it omits important context like authentication requirements (addressed by 'session_name' but not explained), the need for a pre-existing issue, and what the output will be. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but behavioral prerequisites are still missing, making the tool incomplete for an agent to invoke reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage, so the Args block in the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It lists all five parameters but adds little depth—'Repository owner', 'Repository name', and 'Issue number' restate the names. Only 'body' (markdown supported) and 'session_name' (which session) add useful context. This is marginal but compensates slightly for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a comment on an issue.' This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from PR comment creation via the word 'issue.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like github_create_pr_comment, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context of 'add a comment on an issue' makes the usage scenario clear. However, there is no mention of when not to use this tool (e.g., for pull request comments) or any prerequisites like needing an existing issue or an active session. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. The description states it's a read operation ('get detailed information') and lists what fields are shown, which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose whether an active connection/session is required, auth behaviors, rate limits, or error behavior (e.g., behavior when repo doesn't exist). For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves meaningful gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, then parameter notes. The two first sentences are useful; the generated 'Args:' block adds marginal value. No wasted prose, but the structure leans on the auto-generated parameter section which repeats schema titles with minimal added meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return-value documentation isn't required of the description. For a straightforward single-repo read operation, the description covers the purpose and key visible fields. The main gap is auth/session prerequisites, but overall this is reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity and given the presence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the three undocumented parameters. It does list the three args inline (owner, repo, session_name) with brief descriptions ('Repository owner', 'Repository name', 'GitHub session to use'). This adds modest value beyond the schema, but the descriptions are terse and don't explain e.g., that session_name selects among saved credentials, or provide format guidance for owner/repo.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it gets detailed repository info and enumerates specific data fields (stars, forks, languages, default branch, license). The verb 'get' combined with the specific resource 'repository' is clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like github_list_repos or github_get_branch, but the informational scope is reasonably clear for a single-repo fetch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is for fetching info about a specific repository, and the parameter list (owner, repo) makes the use case clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from github_list_repos (which lists repos) or provide when-to-use guidance, nor state prerequisites like needing an active session/connection. Some guidance is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, and the description only restates the action without disclosing side effects, permissions, or reversibility; implies mutation but lacks 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise, front-loads the purpose, and the arg list is compact without redundant fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple mutation tool, the description is minimal; it lacks context on when to use it, prerequisites like authentication, or any behavioral notes, though an output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides brief descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Repository owner', 'GitHub session to use'), but they largely mirror the property names and add minimal semantic value beyond the schema, which has zero coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Close an issue' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like github_close_pr and github_update_issue.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; merely lists parameters without any context on appropriate usage or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'Get the latest published release' without explaining handling of drafts/prereleases, errors, or response format beyond the output schema. It also doesn't note that this is a read-only operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—one sentence plus a short Args list—with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and arguments. However, it leaves ambiguity around what 'published' means (drafts, prereleases) and error handling for repositories without releases. With no annotations, this is a moderate gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The Args section gives one-line descriptions for owner, repo, and session_name, but these largely restate the parameter names. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add more semantic detail, such as expected formats or examples, but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the latest published release for a repository, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_releases and get_release by specifying 'latest published'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 list_releases or get_release. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has side effects, or any other behavioral traits. The simple 'Get' implies a read but no explicit safety or error context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by a compact argument list. Every word earns its place with no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any note on authentication, session prerequisites, or behavior around invalid org names, leaving some gaps for a tool that operates in a GitHub context. It covers the basics but does not fully elaborate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful explanations for both parameters: 'org: Organization name' and 'session_name: GitHub session to use', which adds value beyond the bare schema type/title information. 'GitHub session to use' is slightly ambiguous but still explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get organization information' clearly uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (organization), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_get_repo or github_get_user, as it doesn't specify what aspects of an organization are retrieved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 versus alternatives. No context about prerequisites, complementary tools, or scenarios where this is the appropriate choice is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only that it lists files, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or read-only guarantees. The inclusion of session_name hints at session usage but adds no context about its behavior or consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a one-line purpose followed by a structured arg list. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation, the description covers the core purpose, and the presence of an output schema helps define return values. However, it omits details about how session_name is used, whether the file list includes statuses or metadata, and how this tool fits among other PR tools. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description repeats parameter names with tautological definitions ('owner: Repository owner') that add little beyond the schema titles. It provides a minimal hint that session_name is a GitHub session, but no constraints, defaults, or formatting details. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'List files changed in a pull request.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_get_pr (which retrieves PR details) and github_list_pr_reviews (which lists reviews).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context. The only implied usage is from the verb 'List,' which is insufficient for complex decision-making among the many PR-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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' without explicitly noting read-only behavior, authentication requirements, or the nature of the returned data. Since it's a 'get' operation, the read-only aspect is implied, but the description adds no extra context about behavior, errors, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence plus a bullet-like list of args. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every line earns its place. No redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple getter tool with an output schema present, so the description need not detail return values. However, given the large sibling context and no usage guidance/alternatives, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the basics but leaves questions about when to use this instead of list_prs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description's Args section provides brief but sufficient meanings for each parameter (owner, repo, pr_number, session_name). However, it lacks details like optionality (though schema shows default) or format constraints, and the explanations are minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get detailed information about a pull request' is a clear, specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like github_list_prs (which lists PRs) and mutation tools such as github_update_pr or github_merge_pr by focusing on fetching details of a single PR.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 that it retrieves a single PR by number, nor does it point to github_list_prs as the alternative for listing PRs. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects (e.g., whether reviewers are appended or replaced), permission requirements, or response behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, with a clear one-line purpose followed by a compact args list. Every sentence contributes meaning, especially the comma-separated format hint for reviewers, and there is no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, the description lacks context about how reviewers are applied (append vs. replace) and when this operation is appropriate, which would be expected for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds some semantic value, particularly for 'reviewers' (comma-separated usernames) and 'session_name' (GitHub session to use), but other parameters (owner, repo, pr_number) are only named, not enriched.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Request') with a clear resource ('reviewers') and target ('pull request'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like github_create_pr and github_update_pr, which cover PR creation and general updates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as github_update_pr or github_list_pr_reviews. There are no exclusions or context clues beyond the tool's name and generic description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'via a commit' but fails to explain that this permanently removes the file, that it creates a new commit, or that it requires appropriate permissions. This is especially notable for a destructive mutation tool, leaving the agent unaware of side effects or prerequisites beyond the SHA.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence followed by a neatly formatted parameter list. It is front-loaded with the core action, contains no filler, and each parameter line is concise and informative. Structure is consistent and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations, the description covers the basic operation and all parameters, but omits important context such as whether the commit is pushed, how branch protection is handled, or what the output schema contains (though output schema exists). The SHA hint provides a minimum prerequisite, but overall the behavioral gaps make it only partially complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The Args list provides a clear one-line explanation for every parameter, including the source for sha and the default behavior for branch. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this detailed parameter documentation fully compensates and adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare titles in the input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Delete a file from a repository via a commit.' It specifies the resource (file) and the repository context, making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like github_create_file or github_update_file, but the distinct verb 'delete' is sufficient.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as github_update_file or github_delete_repo. The only procedural hint—'sha: Current file SHA (get from github_get_file)'—is embedded in the parameter list and does not offer general usage direction or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 does disclose a crucial non-obvious behavior: the tag is not deleted. However, it does not mention permission requirements, irreversibility, effects on assets, or what happens if the release does not exist, leaving gaps 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one line stating the core action and a key exception, followed by a structured argument list. Every element adds value with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is thin for a destructive operation. It explains the tag retention behavior but omits permission requirements, side effects (e.g., deletion of release assets), and error handling. Given that an output schema exists, return values may be handled, but the lack of behavioral context makes it only minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it merely lists the parameter names without explaining their meaning or format. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but release_id is not clarified (e.g., numeric ID vs. tag name), and session_name is not explained. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Delete a release) and identifies the specific resource with a key distinction from siblings: the tag is NOT deleted. This differentiates it from other delete tools like delete_repo or delete_branch without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as github_delete_repo or github_delete_branch. The description does not mention prerequisites, error conditions, or any context that would help the agent decide between deletion tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. The description states the read-only nature (getting breakdown data) which implies a safe read operation, but doesn't disclose rate limits, required authentication, or what happens for empty repos. It's an adequate but not rich characterization of behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact with a one-line purpose statement and concise Args list. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every sentence earns its place, though the Args section could be merged more elegantly. No wasteful prose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and parameters adequately. However, it doesn't clarify what 'session_name' does or any edge cases (e.g., empty repository languages). Given the tool's simplicity, this is roughly minimum viable but could benefit from noting the session requirement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description lists the three params with brief meaning (owner, repo, session). However, session_name is mentioned with no clarification of its purpose. The description adds a minimal layer of meaning beyond the bare schema names but doesn't explain the session concept or provide format/baseline expectations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it gets the language breakdown for a repository (bytes per language), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_list_repos and github_get_repo by focusing specifically on language breakdown.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The 'Args' section clarifies the parameters, but the description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_get_repo or github_list_topics. There's a clear implied usage context (needs a specific repo) but no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 lists parameters and defaults (e.g., max_results=20) but does not describe return format, pagination, authentication requirements, or the read-only nature of the operation (beyond what the name implies).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by a parameter list. Each line is functional, though the parameter list is somewhat lengthy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core purpose and main parameters, and an output schema exists. It falls short on pagination details, what happens when max_results is exceeded, and how this function relates to workflow_run-specific operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the Args section adds meaning: workflow_id is explained as 'ID or filename (empty = all workflows)', status lists five filter values, and branch/max_results have brief definitions. However, status values are not exhaustive and owner/repo are trivially explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists workflow runs for a repository or a specific workflow, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like github_list_workflows (which lists workflow definitions) and github_get_workflow_run (which retrieves a single run).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing multiple runs and provides filter parameters, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of alternatives or any exclusions. No sibling tools are referenced for comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states a read-only listing operation, which is transparent on the surface, but does not disclose potential pagination, required authentication, error behavior, or the output format. Since an output schema exists, return format is covered there, but other behavioral details are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and well-structured. The main sentence states the purpose, followed by a clear 'Args:' list identifying each parameter. No fluff or redundant information appears.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the basic functionality and all parameters. The output schema handles return value details, so that omission is acceptable. However, it lacks context about when to use this tool over related siblings and omits behavioral aspects like session requirements or potential errors, making it only minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has bare titles (Owner, Repo, Session Name) with 0% description coverage. The description provides one-liners for each parameter, but these are largely rephrasings of the parameter names ('owner: Repository owner', 'repo: Repository name'). Only 'session_name: GitHub session to use' adds modest context. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all GitHub Actions workflows') and the resource ('in a repository'). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like github_list_workflow_runs which lists runs, not workflows.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 exclusions, prerequisites, or differences from sibling tools such as github_list_workflow_runs or github_trigger_workflow. The context signals show many workflow-related siblings, but the description gives no help choosing among them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 fails to mention that merging is irreversible, requires write permissions, or may fail due to conflicts. Only a bare action and parameter list are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single-sentence summary followed by a concise parameter list. Every line provides necessary information, and there is no redundant or extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutating, potentially irreversible operation, the description is minimal. It omits preconditions, side effects, and permission requirements. The presence of an output schema somewhat reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still lacks enough context for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the tool description is the only source of parameter meaning. It adds valuable semantics beyond the schema: merge_method enum options ('merge', 'squash', 'rebase'), default behavior for empty commit_title/commit_message, and clarifies that pr_number is the PR to merge.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 and resource, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like create_pr, update_pr, and close_pr. It is unambiguous and immediately conveys 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., close_pr) or any preconditions like PR must be open and mergeable. The description is purely a command with no contextual usage hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether existing protection rules are overwritten, whether admin privileges are required, or any side effects beyond setting the rules. The parameter 'enforce_admins' hints at a nuance, but overall the mutation behavior is under-described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized: a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a structured parameter list. It front-loads the core action and then enumerates arguments without unnecessary fluff, though the parameter list largely mirrors the schema and could be trimmed if schema descriptions were present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is an output schema, return values are likely handled elsewhere. However, the description lacks context about important behaviors: whether this modifies or replaces existing branch protection, if there are restrictions on the repository (e.g., private vs public), or what a successful invocation returns. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is a moderate gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema property descriptions are absent (0% coverage), the description compensates well by listing each parameter with a concise explanation: 'Require pull request reviews', 'Minimum number of reviewers', 'Enforce rules for admins too'. This adds meaning beyond the schema titles and defaults, though a few nuances (e.g., interplay between require_reviews and required_reviewers) are left implicit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Set branch protection rules.' This is specific and immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_get_branch or github_update_repo, and there is no other branch protection tool among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The context of enabling branch protection is implied, but the description provides no explicit decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 disclosure. It describes the action as 'Cancel a workflow run' but does not mention whether cancellation is reversible, what side effects occur (e.g., notifications), or what happens if the run is not in progress. It also omits any permission or authentication requirements, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is succinct, opens with the core action, and lists arguments in a clear format. The argument descriptions are somewhat redundant with the schema, but the overall length is appropriate and the structure is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple and has an output schema, but the description omits important context such as error behaviors, prerequisites (e.g., authentication), and edge cases like canceling an already-completed run. It covers the primary action adequately but leaves gaps that could confuse an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The 'Args' section provides only surface-level explanations such as 'owner: Repository owner' and 'repo: Repository name,' which are largely tautological. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to clarify parameter formats, constraints, or the purpose of session_name in relation to the GitHub session.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Cancel a workflow run that is in progress.' This clearly identifies the action (cancel) and the resource (a workflow run), distinguishing it from sibling tools like github_rerun_workflow or github_trigger_workflow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies that the tool applies to runs 'in progress,' providing a clear condition for use. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'in progress' qualifier effectively excludes completed or failed runs, giving clear context without being overly verbose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is a clear behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose whether a session/authentication is required, potential errors (e.g., branch not found), or any additional side effects. It adds minimal value beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, which is good, but the 'Args:' block duplicates the schema information without adding new meaning. It is not maximally concise because it repeats what the input schema already defines, rather than focusing only on unique clarifications.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with an output schema available, the description covers the essential purpose and identifies the resource. It does not explain the session_name parameter's meaning or when it is needed, but the required parameters (owner, repo, branch) are self-explanatory in the GitHub context, and the output schema covers return details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It lists 'owner', 'repo', 'branch', and 'session_name' but only repeats the parameter names without adding any descriptions, defaults, or usage nuance. This fails to provide extra semantic value beyond the schema's raw names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get detailed information about a specific branch' clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('branch'), differentiating it from sibling tools like list_branches or create_branch. It names the target resource precisely without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied by the description: use when you need detailed info on a single branch rather than a list. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid it (e.g., when only a list is needed) or name alternative tools, so it falls at 'implied usage'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It doesn't explain the conditional requirement for release_id/tag, what happens if both are provided, or error handling. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is minimal, with a one-sentence purpose and an args list. Every line contributes useful information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 parameters and an output schema. The description explains parameters but leaves logical constraints ambiguous (e.g., one of release_id/tag should be provided). It also doesn't cover mutual exclusivity behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All five parameters are described with concise explanations, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. The key distinction between release_id and tag is clarified with 'use either this or tag'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 release, distinguishing it from list_releases and get_latest_release by the word 'specific'. The verb 'get' and resource 'release' are explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 siblings like get_latest_release or list_releases. The only hint, 'use either this or tag', addresses parameter selection, not tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only says 'List comments' and lists parameters. It does not mention that it is read-only, whether it supports pagination, how it handles max_results limits, what happens if the issue does not exist, or any authentication requirements. The description lacks meaningful 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured. A single-line summary is followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundant text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward read-only list operation, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits usage guidance, behavioral details, and error handling, but the tool is simple and the output schema exists. Given the lack of annotations and the low schema coverage, more context would be beneficial, but it is not critically incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description explicitly lists all five parameters with brief meanings (e.g., 'issue_number: Issue number', 'max_results: Maximum comments to return'). It adds value beyond the schema by explaining defaults and purpose, though it could be more detailed (e.g., expected formats, constraints).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 comments on an issue.' This is a specific verb+resource pair, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like create_issue_comment or get_issue. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 exclusions, alternatives, or specific contexts. The usage is only implied by the name and the action description, which is insufficient for an agent to decide when to select it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'List members', which implies a read operation but does not explicitly state read-only, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or side effects. No details about handling invalid orgs or partial results are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear Args block. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. It front-loads the primary purpose and then lists parameter semantics in a structured way.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values are already covered. However, the description omits behavioral context such as whether the session is optional (schema shows default 'default' but description doesn't mention it), whether it lists public or all members, and any authentication prerequisites. Given zero annotations, these gaps leave the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining each parameter: 'org: Organization name', 'max_results: Maximum members to return (default: 50)', and 'session_name: GitHub session to use'. These add meaning beyond the bare schema titles, though session_name's meaning remains somewhat vague.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List members of an organization' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('members of an organization'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_list_repos or github_list_org_repos. It is not a tautology because it adds the qualifier 'of an organization' and is unambiguous in its intent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description merely states what it does, but does not mention exclusions (e.g., 'use github_get_user for user details') or prerequisites (e.g., 'requires org membership') to guide an agent's decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the action without disclosing behavior like pagination, ordering, whether review comments are included, or authentication requirements. The Args list does not add behavioral depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose followed by a compact parameter list. Every element is useful and there is no redundant filler. 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the availability of an output schema, return-value details are less critical. However, for a list endpoint, the description lacks mention of pagination or any nuances of GitHub PR reviews. It is minimally complete for a simple tool but misses context that would help an agent invoke it reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage, but the tool description provides an Args section explaining each parameter: owner, repo, pr_number, and session_name. This adds value beyond the schema's type and title, though the explanations are brief and somewhat obvious.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List reviews on a pull request,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like github_list_pr_files or github_list_issue_comments. The Args section reinforces the target PR context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or similar tools such as github_get_pr or github_list_pr_files. Usage context is only implied by the verb 'list' and resource 'reviews'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since there are no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only mentions it lists releases, but does not describe details like pagination, sorting, or how session_name affects behavior. The default for max_results is mentioned, but the broader behavior remains opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single focused sentence followed by a compact parameter list. Every line adds value with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return value details aren't needed. However, without annotations, the description lacks context about pagination, rate limits, or when to choose this over related release tools, making it only minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing brief meanings for each parameter (e.g., 'Repository owner', 'Maximum releases to return') and includes the default for max_results. However, session_name is only vaguely described as 'GitHub session to use', leaving room for ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all releases for a repository' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling release tools like github_get_release and github_get_latest_release by indicating it lists all releases rather than a single one.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 get_release or get_latest_release. The description simply states what it does without contextual exclusions or recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states what information is returned (connection status, user, rate limits) which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose whether this triggers any side effects, whether it requires an active session to succeed, or what happens when the session doesn't exist. An output schema is present, which partially offsets the need to describe return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise - one sentence describing the purpose plus a one-line param explanation. Uses the Args format which is clean and front-loaded. Every element earns its place with zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple status-checking tool with a single optional parameter and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. The purpose and return-value intent are clear. However, given there's no annotations and the schema covers nothing about session_name semantics, slightly more context about what 'session' means and how status differs from what github_get_user returns would strengthen completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter session_name has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add 'Session to check (default: default)' which explains its meaning minimally. However, it doesn't clarify what a 'session' refers to (e.g., saved credentials per github_save_credentials or an active connection) or how session names are established, which would help the agent choose the right value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states what the tool does: show connection status, authenticated user info, and API rate limits. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like github_connect (which establishes connection) or github_get_user (which fetches user data). Could be improved by explicitly noting it's the diagnostic/session-status tool among the GitHub family.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies it's a status-check tool for debugging or verifying session health, but doesn't explicitly say when to use it vs alternatives. The session_name argument hints at checking sessions established via github_connect, but there's no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives for checking auth state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions the basic action. It does not disclose whether labels are appended or overwritten, whether label names must pre-exist, permission requirements, or any side effects. This is a significant transparency gap 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and efficient, with a single-sentence purpose followed by a clearly structured args list. No unnecessary text, though the args list partially duplicates schema information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple add-labels tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose and parameters adequately. However, the lack of usage guidance and behavioral details (which would be especially important with no annotations) leaves the description incomplete for fully informed invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The Args section provides one-line definitions for all five parameters (owner, repo, issue_number, labels, session_name), adding meaning beyond the bare schema titles. While concise, the descriptions are clear and cover all required fields, compensating for the schema's 0% description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Add labels to an issue or pull request' with a specific verb and resource, uniquely distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_issue or create_pr_comment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. It presents the action without context on relationships to other label-related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses credential caching behavior ('automatically cached for future reconnection'), which is useful. However, it doesn't mention security considerations of handling tokens, potential errors, or idempotency of reconnection.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with a brief prose section plus an Args list. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose first. Each parameter gets a short, useful annotation. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Connection/session tools benefit from documenting caching, default values, and alternative use cases (GitHub Enterprise). The description covers these. Given a rich output schema exists and this is a connection bootstrap tool, the coverage is reasonable, though error behaviors and reconnection semantics could be more explicit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 5 parameters. The description does explain each parameter inline (token generation URL, api_url for enterprise, protocol options, timeout meaning, session_name naming). However, it omits the 'default: ssh' value for protocol unlike the schema, and doesn't add format/validation details beyond what the schema provides. The token generation URL is genuinely helpful added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Connect to GitHub API with a Personal Access Token' using a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like github_save_credentials by indicating it performs the connection itself, though the distinction from github_save_credentials could be sharper.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'Credentials are automatically cached for future reconnection', clarifying when to use this tool vs re-using cached connections. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with github_save_credentials or say when NOT to use it (e.g., if already connected).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions markdown support for body and comma-separated formats for labels/assignees, but does not disclose auth requirements, side effects, permission needs, or error behaviors. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-organized in an Args block. Each line adds useful information without redundancy, though it could be more structured with bullet points or a clearer heading.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, return values are covered. The parameter explanations are solid, but the tool lacks usage guidance and behavioral context, making it minimally complete for a 7-parameter tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no per-parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining each parameter's format, including an example for labels, markdown support for body, and clarifying that assignees are usernames. This adds real value beyond the property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Create a new issue in a repository.' which uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_issue, list_issues, and close_issue. The intent is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the verb 'Create' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the action ('Add a comment') but does not disclose whether authentication is required (only implied by the session_name parameter), how the comment interacts with PR state, or any potential side effects. No mentions of rate limits, response format, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact: one sentence for purpose followed by a clean parameter list. Each line earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action. No redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple single action, and the description covers the operation and all parameters. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. However, it lacks any mention of when to use this vs issue comments and does not explicitly state authentication prerequisites, though session_name is a strong hint. Overall, moderately complete for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by listing each parameter with a concise meaning. It adds useful details: 'body' notes markdown support, 'session_name' clarifies it selects a GitHub session, and the owner/repo/pr_number definitions are functional. This provides value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Add a comment on a pull request' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_create_issue_comment (comments on issues) and github_list_pr_reviews (review listings). The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as github_create_issue_comment or other PR comment-related operations. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints about when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and lists parameters with defaults. It does not mention permissions, side effects (like creating tags), error conditions, or idempotency. The mutation aspect is implicit but not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a well-structured Args list. The list is slightly long (10 items) but each line is informative and without fluff. It earns its place given the schema has no descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 10-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all parameters, defaults, and the main action. It lacks some operational context (e.g., whether the tag must already exist, behavior on duplicate releases), but the presence of an output schema and detailed parameter explanations make it mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It provides clear semantics for every parameter, including defaults (name defaults to tag_name, target defaults to default branch) and formats (e.g., tag_name example 'v1.0.0', body markdown). This fully compensates for the silent schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a clear, specific verb+resource statement: 'Create a new release with auto-generated or custom release notes.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_tag or create_repo. The scope is well-defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is clear this tool creates releases, there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., tag existence), exclusions, or comparison to related tools like github_create_tag or github_update_release.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses that this is a destructive/replace operation ('replaces all existing topics'), which is critical for an agent to know. It doesn't state whether it requires authentication (likely via session_name) but the replacement semantics are the most important behavioral trait and are clearly disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact with a one-line summary followed by labeled Args. The replacement warning is front-loaded. Each line in the Args section adds value. Slightly verbose for experienced users, but the structure is logical and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a mutation with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, so the description must carry substantial weight. It discloses the destructive replace behavior and documents all 4 params with brief semantics. However, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., connection/auth required), response format, whether topics have validation constraints (length, format), or interaction with the session system. Acceptable but has gaps for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so param details are absent from the schema itself. The description provides an example format for topics ('python,mcp,devops') and labels what each arg is in the Args section (owner='Repository owner', repo='Repository name', etc.). This compensates partially. However, session_name's semantics are thin ('GitHub session to use') and it doesn't clarify whether it's optional or how sessions map to accounts.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Set repository topics/tags (replaces all existing topics)' — a specific verb (Set) with resource (repository topics) and a key scope detail that it replaces existing topics. It distinguishes adequately from sibling github_list_topics by implying this is a write operation versus a read/list operation, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns about the destructive nature ('replaces all existing topics'), which is a critical usage consideration. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like github_list_topics (e.g., 'use list_topics to view before updating'). The usage guidance is implied by the replacement warning rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses that content is base64-encoded automatically and that empty branch uses the default branch, but it does not cover behavior if the file already exists (e.g., failure vs overwrite) or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, starting with a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a well-organized parameter list. Every line contributes without unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a straightforward mutation tool, especially since an output schema exists. However, it omits important edge-case behavior (what happens if the file exists) and does not differentiate when to use this over update_file. These gaps reduce completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The Args list provides descriptions for all parameters, adding value beyond the schema. It gives a concrete path example and clarifies base64 encoding, but some entries simply restate the parameter name without additional detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new file in a repository via a commit,' identifying the specific action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_file, delete_file, and get_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like update_file. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or context in which this tool should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It documents parameter defaults (private: False, auto_init: True) which is helpful, but doesn't disclose consequences like whether a repo creation overwrites existing repos, what happens on name conflicts, or the behavior when auto_init is True/False. Given no annotations, more behavioral context would be expected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a compact, well-organized parameter listing following the Args pattern. Each parameter is on one line with a concise explanation. It's front-loaded with the core purpose statement. Slightly verbose on the full docstring format but efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all parameters with defaults and examples. It doesn't describe return values, but an output schema exists so that's acceptable. For a creation tool with a session concept (session_name), it could explain more about the session concept, but the parameter list is complete. The example templates are genuinely useful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It documents all 8 parameters with examples for gitignore_template ('Python', 'Node', 'Go') and license_template ('mit', 'apache-2.0', 'gpl-3.0'), and explains private/auto_init defaults. The org field is clarified as empty = personal repo. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new GitHub repository' with a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like github_fork_repo, github_update_repo, and github_delete_repo which handle different operations on repositories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies creation use (first line states the purpose) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. The org field hints at usage context (personal vs organization repos) but there's no explicit exclusion or differentiation guidance beyond the obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that deletion is permanent, which is valuable beyond the tool name. However, with no annotations, it does not mention authentication requirements, potential side effects, or error conditions, leaving the agent with limited 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a single purpose sentence and a compact Args list. No redundancy or wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple delete operation with an output schema present, but the description provides only minimal context. It does not mention success/failure behavior, error cases, or the role of the session, making it adequate but not complete for an agent without annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section provides definitions for both parameters ('Gist ID to delete' and 'GitHub session to use'). This adds meaningful detail beyond the schema's bare titles, though it lacks formats or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Delete a gist permanently') with a clear resource (gist), distinguishing it from sibling tools like github_delete_repo or github_delete_branch. It directly matches the tool name and uniquely identifies the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or context. The description only states what it does, not when it should be invoked or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The Args section adds behavioral context (default is unread only, participating filter, max results), but without annotations the description lacks disclosure of side effects, whether notifications are marked as read, or auth requirements beyond the phrase 'authenticated user'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a structured Args block. The Args section repeats schema names but adds value with descriptions, so it earns its place without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation, the description covers the essential purpose, parameter meanings, and defaults. An output schema exists, so return value details are not required. It could mention pagination or result structure, but overall it is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description's Args section provides clear semantic meaning for each parameter (e.g., 'all_notifications: Show all notifications including read ones'), compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. It explains defaults and filtering behavior beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'GitHub notifications for the authenticated user.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like github_mark_notifications_read (which marks read) and other list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling list includes github_mark_notifications_read, the description does not mention when to use this as opposed to marking notifications read or other notification-related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description notes that it returns a redirect URL, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose other behaviors such as authentication requirements or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a compact parameter list. No unnecessary information is included.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the description covers the purpose and all parameters. The output schema exists, so return details are not needed in the description. However, it lacks context on when to use it or any prerequisites, which prevents a higher score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The Args list provides basic descriptions for each parameter, but they largely restate the parameter names (e.g., 'owner: Repository owner'). The description adds some value for session_name ('GitHub session to use'), which is not self-evident from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get the download URL for workflow run logs' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from related tools like github_get_workflow_run or github_list_workflow_runs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose makes it clear it's for retrieving logs. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It explains the listing scope and parameter meanings, but does not mention that this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements for the specific-user mode, pagination behavior, or error handling. The description only states the basic listing action without deeper 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a concise Args list. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple, and the description covers the core purpose and parameters. However, it lacks important context such as whether authentication is required for viewing a specific user's gists, how pagination works beyond the default max_results, and any side effects. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the behavioral gaps prevent a higher score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: username (empty = authenticated), max_results (maximum, default 20), and session_name. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema properties.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List gists for the authenticated user or a specific user' using a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling gist tools like github_get_gist and github_create_gist.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing gists but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like github_get_gist or mention when to use this tool over others. It provides context for the username parameter (empty = authenticated user), which is a parameter-level usage hint, not tool-level guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly communicates the operation and parameter effects (e.g., state filters, sorting), but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or result ordering details beyond what parameters imply. This is adequate for a straightforward read-only list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured as a purpose line followed by a clear list of parameter explanations. It is slightly verbose but each line provides necessary information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers all six parameters and clearly states the purpose. The output schema exists, so return value details are handled elsewhere. It lacks explicit usage examples or edge-case handling, but for a list operation with well-documented parameters, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains every parameter, including enum values for 'state' and 'sort' (which are not present in the schema), and defaults. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'List pull requests for a repository,' which clearly states the action (list) and the resource (pull requests). This distinguishes it from siblings like github_get_pr (single PR) and github_list_issues (different resource type).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 when not to use it, nor does it reference related tools like github_get_pr or github_list_issues. The usage context is only implied by the operation name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and the non-merge aspect. It does not mention potential side effects (e.g., PR becomes closed, cannot be reopened), permissions required, or behavior when the PR is already closed/merged. This is insufficient 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, with a single front-loaded sentence defining the core action followed by a clean parameter list. There is no redundant text or repetition of schema titles.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations, the description omits important context such as prerequisites (PR must be open), reversibility, or failure conditions. It is adequate but leaves gaps for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an Args block with one-line explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'owner: Repository owner', 'pr_number: PR number to close'), adding semantic meaning beyond the bare schema defaults. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though 'session_name' could be more explicit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Close a pull request without merging.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like github_merge_pr and github_update_pr. The action and scope are immediately obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'without merging' provides clear context that this tool is for closing a PR when merging is not intended, implicitly excluding the merge path. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for a simple action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It does disclose the output behavior (ahead/behind counts and changed files) and the action 'compare' implies a read-only operation. However, it omits any caveats about error cases, branch existence, or output limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one clear sentence followed by an efficiently formatted Args block. Every element earns its place, especially given the need to compensate for missing schema descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, and the description adequately covers its purpose, parameters, and output. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values. Minor gaps remain around edge cases like non-existent branches or pagination, but they are not critical for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the schema has 0% description coverage, the description's Args block thoroughly explains each parameter (owner, repo, base, head, session_name) and even provides examples for base and head. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptive text.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action and output: 'Compare two branches showing ahead/behind counts and changed files.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_branch or list_branches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the usage context entirely to the user.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
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, and it delivers strongly. It explicitly warns 'This action cannot be undone' and enumerates what gets destroyed: 'All data, issues, PRs, and wiki will be lost.' The ⚠️ symbol draws attention to the irreversibility. This is exemplary for a destructive tool with zero annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is tight and front-loaded. The first line states the core action, the warning is prominent, and the Args section is minimal. Every sentence earns its place — no fluff, no redundant prose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive 3-parameter tool, the description is largely sufficient. The warning covers the critical behavioral risk, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The session_name parameter could use more context, but the core destructive action and its consequences are well documented, which is the most important completeness concern here.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for all parameters, but it only provides terse docstring lines: 'Repository owner', 'Repository name', 'GitHub session to use'. These add minimal meaning beyond what the parameter names ('owner', 'repo', 'session_name') already imply. It does not clarify, e.g., the format of owner (username vs org), whether repo is name-only or includes owner prefix, or what sessions are and how session_name affects behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb+resource: 'Delete a GitHub repository permanently.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like github_delete_branch, github_delete_file, and github_delete_release, which target different resources. The word 'permanently' adds destructive scope that sets it apart from other delete siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly states the action but provides no guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that this should only be used after confirming with the user, or that it could be the final action in a session. There's no explicit exclusion or alternative guidance, though the destructive warning implicitly discourages casual use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses behavior reasonably well—listing repos with owner/type/sort filters—but doesn't mention pagination limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid owner names or repo_type values. For a read-only list operation, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with the purpose statement up front and parameter explanations listed clearly. It's efficient with no filler. The main opportunity cost is that parameter explanations could be folded more tightly, but overall the format is clean and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is an output schema present, so return-value documentation isn't needed. The description covers the purpose, all 5 parameters (though briefly), and the authentication context ('GitHub session to use'). It's reasonably complete for a straightforward list operation, though it could add note about what pagination/max_results behavior means.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema JSON. The description compensates slightly by listing each parameter with a brief inline explanation (owner, repo_type, sort, max_results, session_name). This adds meaning beyond just parameter names, but the explanations are minimal—no enums or valid value lists are provided even though the description mentions specific filter strings.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb+resource action: 'List repositories for the authenticated user or a specific user/org.' It names the scope (user or org) and distinguishes from siblings like github_list_user_repos and github_list_org_repos by clarifying it handles both cases via the owner parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly conveys when to use this tool (listing repos generally), and the owner parameter clarifies the difference between authenticated user and specific user/org, which helps avoid confusion with github_get_repo (single repo). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use alternatives like github_search_repos or github_list_user_repos vs this tool, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a mutation via 'create' and notes that from_sha overrides from_branch, which adds useful context. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., branch already exists), required permissions, or error conditions, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence followed by a structured parameter list. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no extraneous text, making it easy to scan and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 6-parameter creation tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter semantics well. It explains the two source options and the override rule, but lacks details on edge cases or authentication requirements. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, so the description is fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by listing each parameter with a concise explanation, including the default for from_branch and the override behavior of from_sha. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema field names, though not every nuance (e.g., session_name) is fully elaborated.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Create a new branch from an existing branch or commit SHA', which clearly states the action (create) and resource (branch). It is distinct from sibling tools like delete_branch, get_branch, and list_branches, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating the tool creates a branch from a source branch or SHA, but it does not explicitly distinguish when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. With many related branch tools available, clearer guidance on selecting this tool would be helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior and the conditional annotated tag creation, but does not mention authentication requirements, what happens if the tag already exists, or other side effects. This is better than a bare 'Create tag' but lacks richer context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by a clean Args block. Every line adds value, and the front-loaded purpose makes it immediately clear what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential inputs and behavior. It lacks explicit prerequisites or error conditions, but these are not critical for a basic create operation. The parameter semantics and conditional behavior make it sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful explanations for all six parameters, including the semantic role of 'sha' and the conditional effect of 'message'. The example for 'tag_name' adds clarity, though some entries are terse.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new tag (lightweight or annotated)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like github_create_release and github_create_branch by focusing on tags, including the lightweight vs. annotated distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for tagging a specific commit but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_create_release or github_list_tags. It provides no exclusions or alternative tool names, only the conditional behavior of annotated vs. lightweight tags.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavior about the protocol parameter ('empty = use session default') and lists the arguments, but it does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or the fact that this is a read-only safe operation. It covers some behavioral details but leaves out several.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured. It opens with a one-sentence purpose, then uses an Args list to document parameters. Every line provides value without fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of this getter tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it retrieves, the format options, and parameter roles. It could enhance completeness by noting that a session must be connected, but overall it is sufficiently complete for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: owner, repo, protocol, and session_name. It adds meaningful clarity for protocol ('ssh' or 'https' plus default behavior) and session_name ('GitHub session to use'), which is not present in the schema. Though brief, it covers all parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get the clone URL for a repository in SSH or HTTPS format.' This is a specific verb+resource+format, uniquely distinguishing it from sibling tools like github_get_repo or github_get_file. No ambiguity about what this tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied by the tool's purpose (retrieving clone URLs), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, no prerequisites like requiring an authenticated session, and no exclusions. It does not mention that a connection/session must be established first, which would be useful context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It says 'Get' which implies read-only, but it doesn't explicitly state that there are no side effects, whether authentication is required beyond the session_name parameter, or what the response contains. The mention of 'authenticated user' hints at auth needs but doesn't fully disclose the behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, and the args are clearly listed in a structured format. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and both parameters. It lacks explicit statements about side effects or prerequisites, but the output schema handles return values. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a low-complexity tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: username ('empty = authenticated user') and session_name ('GitHub session to use'), adding meaning beyond the schema's type/default definitions. This is helpful but session_name could be more detailed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get user profile information' with a specific verb and resource. It also adds a distinctive behavior: 'authenticated user if username is empty', which distinguishes it from other get-type tools like github_get_org or github_get_repo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: to fetch a user profile, with the special instruction for empty username meaning the authenticated user. It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'List all tags' but the max_results parameter defaults to 30, meaning it does not actually list all unless specified. It also does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when max_results is exceeded. The 'all' claim is misleading without qualification.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one clear sentence followed by a concise parameter list. Every line earns its place, and the format is front-loaded with the core purpose. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and all parameters. The only notable gap is the 'all vs. max_results' nuance, but given the output schema and simplicity, the description is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must define parameters. It does so effectively: owner/repo semantics are clear, max_results includes a default, and session_name is explained. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type/title fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List all tags in a repository' with a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_branches or list_releases. It is specific and immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use this tool (when you need repository tags), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. In the context of the sibling tools, the purpose is evident, but it lacks explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the tool lists public repositories and implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose behavior such as rate limits, session requirements, or error handling for invalid usernames.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary followed by a compact Args list. Every line adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present and a straightforward list operation, the description is largely sufficient for correct invocation. It covers all parameters and scope, but could more strongly connect to surrounding authentication/session concepts or differentiate from overlapping repo-list tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by documenting all four parameters, including valid sort options ('updated', 'created', 'pushed', 'full_name') and defaults. However, 'session_name' is only glossed as 'GitHub session to use', adding limited clarity beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List public repositories for a specific user' uses a specific verb+resource and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like github_list_repos, github_list_org_repos, and github_search_repos by emphasizing 'specific user' and 'public'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied ('for a specific user') but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_list_repos or github_search_repos, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 discloses the trigger requirement but does not mention required permissions, side effects (e.g., creating a new run), or whether the tool is asynchronous. For a mutating action, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a clear purpose, followed by a condition and a structured parameter list. The list is necessary given the lack of schema descriptions. It is not excessively verbose, though the Arg list repeats property names that already exist in the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, return-value coverage is not needed. The description covers all parameters and the key prerequisite. It lacks details on error conditions or side effects, but for a trigger tool with a clear purpose, this is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the Arg list fully compensates by explaining every parameter with meaning and examples (e.g., workflow_id as 'deploy.yml', inputs as a JSON string). It adds substantial value beyond the bare schema property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Trigger a workflow dispatch event (manually run a workflow)' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listing or getting workflow runs by focusing on the action of manually triggering a run.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides an explicit prerequisite: 'The workflow must have a workflow_dispatch trigger defined.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the condition is enough to differentiate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description explicitly discloses the idempotent partial-update behavior ('Only provided fields will be updated. Leave empty to keep current value.'), which is critical for an update tool. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like archiving implications or whether explicit permissions are required for certain fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized with an Args list that front-loads the key information. The 'Only provided fields will be updated. Leave empty to keep current value.' summary is highly efficient. The Args section is a bit verbose with repetitive 'empty = no change' phrasing, but this is justified for clarity given the field semantics.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Has output schema (covers return value disclosure), and the description thoroughly documents all 8 parameters. For an 8-parameter partial-update tool with no annotations, this is reasonably complete. Minor gaps: doesn't mention whether archiving a non-empty repo is allowed or any auth requirements, but the core usage semantics are well covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 8 parameters. It provides semantic detail for each field, including the crucial 'empty = no change' semantics that differ from the schema's bare defaults. The private and archived fields are documented as expecting 'true'/'false' strings. This is valuable beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update repository settings' with a specific verb and resource. It lists all supported fields (description, homepage, private, archived, default_branch). It distinguishes from create_repo and delete_repo, though it could more explicitly contrast with github_update_file (which updates file contents).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context that only provided fields are updated and empty means no change. This is important behavioral guidance for an update tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like github_update_file or github_update_topics, though the resource scope (repository settings vs file/topic) makes this reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only repeats the operation and parameter semantics, and does not mention auth/session requirements, whether private repos are included based on permissions, or pagination/result-limit behavior. This leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear purpose sentence followed by a compact Args block. Every line earns its place, with no redundancy or filler, and the purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
All five parameters are documented with meaningful semantics and defaults, and the output schema covers return values. The main gaps are the lack of explicit usage-alternative guidance and behavioral notes about authentication, but the tool is still sufficiently complete for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter, listing valid values for repo_type and sort, and stating defaults. This gives the agent concrete information needed to invoke the tool correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'repositories for an organization', which directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_list_repos and github_list_user_repos. The org scope is explicit and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates the intended context: listing repositories for a specific organization. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the org-specific scope and sibling tool names make the appropriate use case fairly inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clarifies that labels and assignees are replaced (not added) and that empty values mean no change, which are important non-obvious details. It does not mention side effects or authentication requirements, but the session parameter hints at required setup.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a one-sentence summary followed by a structured Args block that documents all nine parameters. Every line provides necessary information, and the format is clean and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is moderately complex with 9 parameters, and the description thoroughly documents all parameters, especially the edge-case behaviors. It lacks explicit usage context or alternative guidance, but the presence of an output schema covers return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With code schema coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning, including the replacement semantics for labels and assignees and the empty-means-no-change convention. This goes well beyond the input schema's default and type info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates an issue's title, body, labels, assignees, or state, providing a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like github_add_labels, which also modifies labels, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The usage is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no statement about prerequisites or exclusions, such as noting that labels are replaced instead of added.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the public/secret default and the expected JSON format for files, but it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or other side effects beyond creation, leaving some behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose, followed by concise parameter bullets. Every line earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 4 parameters, output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary usage context: file content format, description, public/secret default, and session selection. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description adds substantial meaning: an example JSON string for files, the default secret behavior for public, and the purpose of session_name. This fully compensates for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Create a new gist') and resource ('gist'), with the scope 'one or more files'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling gist operations like list/get/delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for creating gists but does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. There is no guidance on prerequisites or conditions that would make another tool more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 disclose that body supports markdown and draft defaults to false, and it mentions session_name for authentication. However, it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., branch existence), or failure behavior, leaving notable information gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence followed by a well-formatted argument list. Each parameter is explained with concise, useful information and no redundant text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
All parameters are thoroughly documented, and an output schema exists. However, the description lacks broader context such as prerequisites (e.g., existing GitHub session, branch existence) or when to use this tool relative to other PR operations. This prevents a higher score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides meaningful explanations for every parameter, including examples for head/base, defaults for draft and session_name, and markdown support for body. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'Create a new pull request', which uses a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_pr, merge_pr, and close_pr.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The 'create' verb and the required parameters (owner, repo, title, head, base) make the intended usage clear. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like github_update_pr, so it misses the top score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 via 'Get' but does not explicitly state that no changes are made. It does add behavioral context for parameter defaults (empty path = root, empty ref = default branch), but lacks detail on return behavior or side effects. The presence of an output schema may cover return format, but the description itself is minimal on behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise, with a single, clear purpose sentence followed by a neatly organized Args list. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure front-loads the main action before parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 2 required) and the existence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers all parameters and their default behaviors, satisfies the immediate purpose, and the output schema likely handles return-value details. Some minor gaps remain (e.g., no explicit mention of auth requirements or when to choose this over alternatives), but overall it is sufficient for a simple read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by listing all five parameters with meaningful explanations: 'path' is the directory path (empty = root), 'ref' is branch/tag/SHA (empty = default branch), and 'session_name' indicates which GitHub session to use. The descriptions add value beyond the bare parameter names and titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get directory listing/tree for a repository path' clearly specifies the action (get), the resource (directory listing/tree), and the scope (repository path). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like github_get_file (file content) and github_list_branches (branches) by focusing on the tree structure.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to retrieve a directory listing/tree), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases. The purpose is evident from the description and naming, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 mutation (marking as read) and explains parameter semantics, but it does not disclose side effects, irreversibility, or required permissions. The 'empty = all' detail adds some behavioral insight, but the overall transparency is only moderately sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: one declarative sentence for purpose followed by a structured args list. There is no superfluous wording, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function and parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the core action and all parameters adequately. An output schema exists, so the absence of return value explanation is acceptable. It could mention that only unread notifications are affected or that the action is irreversible, but the current content is sufficient for a basic mark-as-read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides only titles and defaults with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains last_read_at as an ISO 8601 timestamp with the 'empty = all' behavior and clarifies session_name as the GitHub session. This adds meaningful value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a clear declarative sentence 'Mark all notifications as read,' which states the specific verb (mark) and resource (notifications) with an explicit scope (all). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling github_list_notifications, which lists rather than modifies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers clear context by explaining the last_read_at parameter, showing how to mark a subset versus all, and what session_name refers to. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the straightforward nature of the operation and the obvious contrast with list_notifications make the usage reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a search operation and that a session_name is required, but it lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or any side effects. The qualifier examples add some behavioral context, but the transparency is 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a short args list. It front-loads the core purpose ('Search code across GitHub.') and then packs additional useful info (qualifiers, defaults) without any wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the essential aspects: query format with qualifiers, max_results, and session_name. It does not mention authentication prerequisites or API-specific limits, but for a search tool with a manageable parameter set, the information is sufficient 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.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does so effectively: 'query' gets an example ('FastMCP language:python'), 'max_results' is given a default (20) and meaning, and 'session_name' is described as the GitHub session to use. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search code across GitHub.' The verb 'search' and resource 'code' are specific, and the qualifier examples (repo:, path:, extension:) help distinguish it from sibling search tools like github_search_repos and github_search_issues.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (code search) through the qualifier examples and the 'Search code' statement. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the differentiation from search_repos/search_issues/search_users is implicit in the name and description, earning a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the supported qualifiers and default sort order, which is useful. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or any side effects. For a simple search tool this is acceptable but not exhaustive, hence a mid-range score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is succinct and well-structured: a one-line summary, a qualifier explanation, and a compact Args section. Every sentence contributes value, and the formatting improves scannability without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, query syntax, and parameters. It does not address edge cases like pagination or error handling, but for a straightforward search tool, it is reasonably complete. The absence of prerequisites like session setup is a minor gap, shared with sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), but the description's 'Args' block fills that gap by explaining each parameter's purpose, default values, and examples. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the raw schema, earning a score above baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (search) and resource (GitHub users and organizations). It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools like github_search_repos, github_search_code, and github_search_issues by specifying the target. The mention of qualifiers like type:user and type:org further clarifies the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: to search for users or organizations. It includes specific query examples (type:org language:python) that illustrate usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative search tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses that the operation creates a commit and that the SHA is required to prevent conflicts. However, it doesn't mention error behavior, permissions, or content encoding, which are relevant 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, a prerequisite note, and a compact parameter list. No unnecessary words or repetitions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
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, the description covers the key workflow (get SHA first) and parameter semantics. It omits some details like content encoding and conflict behavior, but the information provided is sufficient for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by listing all 8 parameters with concise meanings, including the critical SHA requirement and branch default behavior. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles, though it omits content encoding details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing file in a repository via a commit.' The verb 'Update' plus the resource 'existing file' distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_create_file and github_delete_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs the user to obtain the current file's SHA from github_get_file first, providing a clear prerequisite and workflow. It doesn't explicitly contrast with create_file, but 'existing file' implies when it should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 explains the filtering, sorting, and limit behavior but does not disclose return format, pagination details, or any side effects. Since it is a read-only list operation, the lack of side-effect disclosure is mitigated, but the agent is left without information about the response structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured as a docstring with a one-sentence purpose followed by an Args list. Every line provides value, with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 params, no annotations, an output schema exists), the description covers the essential usage aspects. It explains all parameters and their interactions. The existence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values. It could mention the requirement for an active session, but session_name is already a parameter, and sibling github_connect handles that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, with no descriptions in the input schema. The description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, including allowed values (open/closed/all for state, created/updated/comments for sort), format (comma-separated labels), and defaults. This is comprehensive and adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'List issues in a repository with optional filters', using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_get_issue (singular) and github_search_issues (search vs list).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly states the tool lists issues in a specific repository with optional filters, providing context for when it would be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using github_search_issues for cross-repo searches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses query behavior, supported qualifiers, and parameter defaults, but with no annotations it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication/session setup is required, or how results are limited/paginated. The session_name and max_results params hint at these aspects, but rate limits and return format are not mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized, starts with a clear one-sentence purpose, and uses a tidy Args list. It is efficient and well-structured, with every line contributing value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description covers the query syntax, parameters, and scope well, but it lacks an explicit note about requiring a connected session or the API's search limitations, which slightly reduces completeness for an agent unfamiliar with GitHub sessions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero schema description coverage, the Args section fully compensates by explaining each parameter with purpose, examples, valid sort options, and defaults. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema, giving the agent a clear understanding of query formulation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Search issues and pull requests across GitHub,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like github_search_repos, github_search_code, and github_search_users. The qualifiers and example further cement its unique scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context through the supported qualifiers and an example query, indicating it is for cross-repo issue and PR searches. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over github_list_issues or github_list_prs, which are likely repo-scoped listing alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 explains the query syntax and parameters but does not disclose return format, pagination, rate limiting, or explicitly state that the operation is read-only. The behavior is implied by 'search' but not fully detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and concise: it opens with a one-line purpose, then provides essential qualifier examples, and lists parameters in a clear arg block. Every sentence contributes and nothing is wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main usage scenarios and parameters well. Minor gaps exist, such as not explicitly mentioning when to prefer alternative search tools or elaborating on session_name, but overall it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the tool description compensates by thoroughly explaining each parameter: query with example, sort options with defaults, max_results default, and session_name. It adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Search GitHub repositories by query' and immediately distinguishes from sibling search tools (code, issues, users) by explicitly targeting repositories. It also uses specific qualifiers like language:python, stars:>100 to further clarify the functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context—this tool is for repository search—and includes example queries with qualifiers. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool (e.g., 'for code search use github_search_code'), so it relies on the name and sibling list for differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavior such as 'empty = no change' for fields, which is useful but does not cover side effects of changing base branch, auth needs, or error conditions. The mutation implication is clear but additional caveats are absent. Output schema exists, which reduces the need to describe return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with a brief summary followed by a clean arg list. Every line is informative and there is no redundant prose, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a relatively simple update tool, the description covers all parameters with semantics and includes an output schema. Missing pieces are explicit usage alternatives and deeper behavioral traps (e.g., invalid state, base change implications), but overall it is complete enough for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides a one-line semantic for every parameter, including the meaning of empty strings and allowed state values. This adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has zero description coverage for the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: updating a pull request's title, body, base branch, or state. It specifies the resource (pull request) and the precise fields affected, distinguishing it from related tools like create_pr, close_pr, and merge_pr.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use this tool (when you need to modify an existing PR's metadata), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The distinction from sibling tools like close_pr and merge_pr is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by mentioning auto-decoding of base64 and the ref resolution behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention errors, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond the session_name parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a list of arguments. Every line adds information, with no redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with an output schema present, the description covers all necessary aspects: the purpose, key behavior (base64 decoding), and all parameters. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by documenting all five parameters with clear, meaningful explanations (e.g., 'ref: Branch, tag, or commit SHA (empty = default branch)'). The example for path ('src/main.py') further enhances clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Get file content from a repository') and adds a key behavioral detail (auto-decodes base64). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_get_tree or github_search_code.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies the tool is used when you need file content from a repo, providing context through the Args list (owner, repo, path, ref). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but given the straightforward purpose, the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![github-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Pawangunjkar/github-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Pawangunjkar/github-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![github-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Pawangunjkar/github-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Pawangunjkar/github-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Pawangunjkar/github-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server