upload_to_github

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions the required token and that the tool uploads (a write operation). However, it does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or confirmation of success/failure. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise: two sentences conveying purpose, prerequisite, and workflow. No wasted words, and the critical information is front-loaded.

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's moderate complexity (4 required params, output schema present), the description covers the essential workflow (export first, upload) and prerequisite. It assumes the output schema documents return values, which is acceptable. The only missing part is optional behavior or error scenarios, but overall complete.

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 has full description coverage (100%), so each parameter's purpose is already documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, mentioning only the token requirement not in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the action ('Upload a SARIF report') and the target system ('GitHub Code Scanning'), using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like 'export_sarif' (which exports locally) and 'import_sarif' (likely different scope).

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 explicitly notes prerequisites: the GITHUB_TOKEN with required scope and the need to first call export_sarif. This gives clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools like import_sarif.

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