Export app to GitHub

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 explicitly mentions that it performs git init, commit, gh repo create, and push, and that secrets are automatically gitignored. It also notes the user-consent requirement for public repos. It does not mention edge cases like existing repos or failure handling, but the core side effects are clearly surfaced, making it fairly transparent.

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 two well-structured sentences. The main action and steps are stated first, followed by key details about secret handling and user consent. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context: the operation performed, the automatic handling of secrets, and the prerequisite for gh CLI. It also covers the user-consent requirement for public visibility. Missing details like default behavior if a repo already exists or what happens on failure are not critical for initial selection and invocation. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly in most cases.

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?

The input schema already describes repo and visibility (67% coverage), leaving only the app parameter undocumented. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but it does mention that secrets are gitignored, which is relevant to the overall operation. Since schema coverage is above 80% (actually 67%—still above the 50% threshold), the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for low coverage, and it adds minimal extra parameter insight.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: turning an app into the user's own GitHub repository through git init, commit, gh repo create, and push. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy or share_preview, which serve different functions. The use of concrete actions and the inclusion of secret handling make the purpose unambiguous.

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 description states the prerequisite of the gh CLI being logged in and instructs to ask the user before making a repo public, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer when it is appropriate. It covers key conditions without being exhaustive.

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