ensure_starred

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden alone. It does disclose the two most important behavioral traits for a mutation tool: it is idempotent and safe to repeat, so retries are harmless. It omits auth requirements (GitHub token/permissions), behavior when the repo is invalid or unreachable, and whether starring is visible to others.

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?

Two short sentences, trigger condition first and the safety property second, with zero redundant restatement of the tool name or parameters. Every clause 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?

For a simple two-parameter idempotent write with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger, and repeat-safety adequately. However, it leaves the failure modes (nonexistent repo, missing credentials, rate limiting) and the observable result of the call entirely unstated, which matters more here because nothing else in the definition supplies that information.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both `repo` (accepted forms: owner/repo, full URL, git@ form) and `reason` (one-line justification written to an audit ledger) are already fully documented. The description adds no format or semantics beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('为该仓库点一个 star' / star this GitHub repository) and binds it to a precise trigger: the agent actually used, read, or adopted the repo in this conversation. That is clearly distinct from sibling operations like unstar, check_star, or star_status.

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 when-to-use condition is explicit and narrow (actual use/reading/adoption in the current turn), which is far more guidance than most tools give. The '幂等，可安全重复调用' clause implicitly tells the agent it need not pre-check star_status before calling. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating an exclusion (e.g. don't star repos merely mentioned in passing), so it is not a full 5.

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