github_check_repo_deploy_keys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'Audit' suggests a read-only, non-destructive check, but the description does not explicitly state behavioral traits such as side effects, permission requirements, or rate limits. It is adequate but minimal.

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, front-loading the purpose and detection rule. Every word is essential, with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description sufficiently conveys its core function and the specific rule it detects. It could optionally mention the output format, but the naming and sibling context (other check tools) provide enough implicit context for an AI agent.

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 for parameters is 100% (both 'owner' and 'repo' have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description 'Audit deploy keys for unnecessary write access. Detects REPO-012' clearly specifies the verb ('Audit'), the resource ('deploy keys'), and the specific action ('unnecessary write access'). It differentiates from sibling tools like 'github_check_collaborators' or 'github_check_repo_branch_protection' by naming a concrete security rule (REPO-012).

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 implies usage through its name and action ('Audit deploy keys'), but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide context for when it should be used. It relies on the tool's naming convention among siblings for implied guidance.

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