github_list_checks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool lists checks and is filterable, but does not mention read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. For a listing tool, more transparency is expected.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality and output, the second adds filterability. No unnecessary words, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (IDs, categories, severities, descriptions). It covers purpose, output, and filters. For a simple tool with 2 optional parameters, it is complete enough, though lacking error or scope details.

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% (both parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'Filterable by category and severity' which aligns with schema descriptions but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'all available security checks', and the specific output fields (IDs, categories, severities, descriptions). It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_check_* which perform specific checks rather than listing metadata.

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 listing of available checks, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No 'when not to use' or exclusion criteria are provided. Given the context of many sibling tools for specific checks, the purpose is clear but guidance is minimal.

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