github_default_pr_base_branch

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

No annotations are provided, yet the description does not disclose any behavioral traits: whether it reads or writes, what side effects occur, what the output schema contains, or any permissions needed. The agent has no insight into 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.

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

While short, the description is not efficiently informative. It wastes space on technical routing details that are likely irrelevant to the agent's decision-making. The core function is missing, making the conciseness detrimental rather than helpful.

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

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

Given the tool suggests a specific configuration operation and has an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does, what parameters the JSON should contain, or what the output signifies, leaving the agent without enough context to use it correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description merely states that the 'arguments' parameter is a JSON string. It provides no information about accepted keys, structure, or examples, leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct valid input.

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

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

The description only restates the tool name and provides technical routing information, but fails to explain what the tool actually does (e.g., get or set the default base branch for pull requests). The purpose is unclear and leaves the agent guessing.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_default_org or github_default_repo. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or suitable scenarios.

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