github_check_app_permissions

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It states 'Audit' which implies read-only, but does not confirm lack of side effects, required permissions, or whether it modifies anything. No details on output format or potential impacts.

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?

Single concise sentence front-loaded with action. No wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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?

Lacks output schema and annotations. Does not explain what 'ACC-003' means, what the audit returns, or any behavioral details. For a tool in a large suite of similar checks, more completeness is needed for effective agent use.

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% with owner and repo described. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema; it does not explain acceptable values or provide context. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Audit' with specific resource 'GitHub App installations' and scope 'overly broad permission scopes'. Also mentions 'Detects ACC-003', a specific rule. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_check_org_apps or github_check_team_permissions.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context where other tools might be more appropriate. The description is functional but lacks usage direction.

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