github_cloud

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., mutating actions like create_branch, trigger_workflow, delete_secret), rate limits, or access requirements beyond the linked account. It also misleadingly lists 'commit' as an operation, which could confuse the agent. This is insufficient for a tool with many mutating actions.

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, front-loaded sentence that quickly conveys the general domain. It is concise and does not waste words. However, the inclusion of 'commit' introduces inaccuracy, which slightly undermines its reliability but does not detract from its brevity.

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 complexity—17 distinct actions, nested payload objects, and no output schema—a one-sentence description is clearly inadequate. It only highlights a few operations and even includes an unsupported one. The schema helps with parameter details, but the description fails to guide the agent through the full range of actions or explain when to invoke each, making it incomplete for correct tool usage.

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 schema has 100% parameter description coverage, with detailed descriptions for each property (e.g., repo format, action enum, payload fields). The description adds little beyond naming a few actions, but since the schema already documents parameters well, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't add new meaning that would improve parameter understanding.

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 says 'perform operations on Github' and names a few examples (create Issue, Pull Request, view branches, commit), which gives a general sense of a GitHub automation tool. However, it includes 'commit' which is not among the 17 allowed actions in the schema, and it omits many other actions like workflows, secrets, collaborators, and projects. This makes the purpose somewhat unclear and partially misleading.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like git_status, git_log, or other git-related siblings. The phrase 'Github ... đã liên kết trên Cloud' implies remote GitHub operations, but it doesn't state exclusions such as 'use this for remote GitHub metadata, not local git operations'. This leaves the agent to infer usage.

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