GitHub Actions Audit

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it scans workflow files, knows 30+ popular actions, and names examples. No contradiction with annotations.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a coverage note and two example queries. The examples are useful but slightly redundant, making the description just above average in conciseness.

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?

The description explains what the tool scans and its known-action coverage, but it does not describe the output or return value. Since no output schema is present, this is a notable gap. With only two optional parameters and safe read-only semantics, it is otherwise adequately 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 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already adequately documents 'project' and 'directory'.

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The description uses a specific verb 'Scan' with resource 'GitHub Actions workflow files' and the goal 'outdated or deprecated actions'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by targeting GitHub Actions workflow files specifically.

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 includes example user queries ('Check my GitHub Actions versions', 'Any deprecated actions in my workflows?') that make the intended usage clear. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving a minor gap.

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