check_best_practices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it states 'Side effects: None. Read-only operation,' discloses rate limits (~6 GitHub API calls per invocation), and explains the branch protection permission behavior (returns 'unknown' rather than penalizing). This is useful context that helps the agent anticipate side effects and edge cases.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the main purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by a bulleted list of checks, output details, side effects, rate limits, and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the alternative tool is mentioned at the end. It's appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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 is complete for a read-only audit tool. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, side effects, rate limits, permission edge cases, and when to use it vs. the sibling. The output schema exists, so return values are already structured. Nothing an agent needs to correctly select and invoke this tool is missing.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (owner and repo) with examples. The description doesn't add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, but it doesn't need to. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: checking whether a GitHub repository follows open-source community best practices. It lists the 12 specific checks, the output format (weighted 0-100 score, A-F grade, per-check status, suggestions), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_health_score' by noting the alternative computes a health grade based on CI/security/activity. This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.

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 states when to use this tool ('Use this tool to audit repo quality and discoverability') and names the alternative ('get_health_score') with the condition that selects it ('For a computed health grade based on CI/security/activity'). It also discloses a prerequisite/limitation: the branch protection check requires admin access and returns 'unknown' if the token lacks permission. This is explicit when/when-not guidance.

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