github_get_user_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that results are cached with a 15-minute TTL and that a refresh parameter exists to bypass the cache, but it does not mention auth failure behavior, rate-limit implications, or explicitly confirm there are no 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.

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

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that states the primary purpose, the additional computed value, and the caching behavior. There is no filler or redundant detail.

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?

For a simple one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to invoke it: what is returned at a high level, the caching behavior, and the existence of a refresh override. It could optionally detail the response shape or auth failure handling, but this is not essential for correct invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the refresh parameter is already clearly documented in the input schema as 'Force live refresh from GitHub API, bypassing cache.' The main description's cache/TTL mention reinforces this but does not meaningfully add beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('authenticated GitHub user details') plus the additional computed value ('total count of starred repositories'). It is distinct from sibling tools like github_list_starred, which clearly targets the actual starred repo list rather than user info.

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

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

The intended use is implied by the tool name and description: retrieve user info and star count. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over github_list_starred or github_get_user_lists, and no exclusions or alternative routing.

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