github_create_check_run

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It only mentions authentication routing but does not state whether the operation is destructive, requires permissions, or has side effects. The agent cannot infer consequences of invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is short (two sentences) but the first sentence is redundant with the tool name. It is concise but at the expense of essential content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of GitHub check runs and zero schema parameter descriptions, the description provides insufficient context. The output schema exists but is not referenced. The agent lacks information to construct valid arguments or understand the response.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, but description only repeats 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' It adds no information about required keys, format, or expected values. The agent cannot determine how to properly structure the arguments.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description repeats the tool name 'create_check_run' as a 'Github connector operation' without defining what a check run is or how it differs from similar tools like github_update_check_run or github_list_check_runs. The routing infrastructure note does not clarify purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it. The description lacks any usage context.

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