repo_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important trait: extra calls (languages, PRs) may fail and return null rather than failing the whole check. It does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or that PR counting is capped at the first 100 open PRs in a way that could undercount — actually the cap is stated, but the consequence (truncated counts) is not spelled out.

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?

Roughly three sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the failure-mode caveat last. 'Plus upgrades' is slightly awkward phrasing but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the failure semantics are covered. Missing pieces for a tool that makes multiple GitHub API sub-calls are auth expectations and rate-limit behavior, which an agent would want before calling.

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 0% — 'owner' and 'repo' are bare strings with no descriptions. The description compensates only partially by restricting the repo to public GitHub repositories; it says nothing about owner login format (user vs org) or case sensitivity. Adequate but not fully compensating for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (health summary) and resource (a public GitHub repository), plus the included data (top languages by bytes, open PR count). It is clearly not repo_compare or github_user_summary, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 'PUBLIC' qualifier implicitly tells the agent this tool is unsuitable for private repos, which is useful scoping. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to repo_compare for comparison tasks; usage must be inferred from the name.

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