Security Triage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read. The description adds behavioral details: produces a triage report with summary, severity breakdown, recommended fix order, suggested issues. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. Each sentence adds value: core function, required scopes, parameters, returns. No fluff. Front-loaded with purpose.

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 presence of an output schema (mentioned in context), the description adequately covers return values. All 5 parameters are explained with defaults and scopes. The description is complete for this read-only triage tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining fallback to environment variables for owner/repo and listing required scopes per inclusion flag, which is not fully captured in the schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states it reads GitHub security alerts (code scanning, Dependabot, secret scanning) and produces a triage report. The verb 'read' and resource 'security alerts' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_issue_set' or 'repo_context' by focusing on security alerts triage.

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?

Provides required token scopes and default values for inclusion flags. While it doesn't explicitly compare to siblings, the description gives clear context on when to use (for security triage) and what scopes are needed. Could be improved by stating when not to use or alternatives like 'workflow_permissions_audit'.

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