github_check_workflow_pinning

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'detect' without clarifying read-only status, side effects, or output format. This is insufficient for an agent to understand operational behavior.

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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is concise and front-loads the key action. However, it could benefit from slight restructuring to improve scannability.

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 tool has simple parameters and no output schema. The description explains the detection logic but omits return value details (e.g., format of findings). For such a tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with basic descriptions for owner and repo. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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: detecting unpinned third-party actions. It specifies the check method (tag reference vs. SHA pinning) and references a specific rule ID (ACT-004). This provides a precise verb+resource scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_check_workflow_injection.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it. Given the large number of sibling tools, lack of usage context reduces its helpfulness.

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