vet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details about what it checks (clarity, scope, assignees, staleness), providing useful context beyond the annotation. No contradiction.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first states the primary purpose, second lists specific checks. No redundant words, front-loaded with key action.

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 description adequately explains the tool's function and checks. However, it does not hint at the output format (e.g., boolean or detailed report), which would enhance completeness. Nonetheless, for a simple assessment tool, it is mostly 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 single parameter issueUrl is fully described in the input schema with a clear format and example. The tool description adds no additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, achieving baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Analyze' and the resource 'a GitHub issue', with a specific purpose 'to determine if it is a good candidate for contribution'. It also enumerates the checks performed (clarity, scope, assignees, staleness), making it distinct from sibling tools like 'read' or 'claim'.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: to vet an issue for contribution. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the sibling tool names provide context (e.g., 'claim', 'read'), and the description implies it is for assessment, not action.

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