get_github_trending_developers

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 only states the purpose and usage scenario but does not explain behavior like data source, caching implications, rate limits, or pagination. The use_cache parameter is mentioned in the schema but not elaborated in the description.

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 at two sentences, with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and then the usage scenario. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return format (e.g., list of developers with names, repos, contributions). It does not. The tool has three optional parameters, but the description does not explain their effect. The large sibling list adds context, but the description remains minimal.

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 coverage is 100%: all three parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The description itself does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline is 3, and the description is neutral; it neither harms nor improves 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get GitHub trending developers/contributors.' It specifies the resource (GitHub trending developers) and verb (get), and distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_github_trending_repos' by focusing on developers rather than repositories.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when user asks about popular developers, top contributors, or influential programmers on GitHub.' While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, the positive use case is clearly defined, and the sibling list includes a direct alternative (get_github_trending_repos) for repos.

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