github_repo_health

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Discloses the paywall and authentication flow via x402. Lacks details on rate limits, data freshness, or error handling, which would improve transparency.

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 sentences: first covers core functionality and return value, second explains payment flow. Efficient and front-loaded with no superfluous words.

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?

Describes return format (0-100 score with per-factor breakdown) and payment mechanism. Given no output schema, this is adequate. Missing details like pagination or depth of breakdown, but overall sufficient for a paid API tool.

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%, so schema already documents parameters. Description adds no extra meaning for 'owner' or 'repo' beyond schema. The _payment parameter behavior is explained in description, but overall adds minimal value over schema.

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?

Clearly identifies the tool as scoring GitHub repository health with specific factors listed (commit cadence, issue-close latency, etc.). Distinguishes itself from diverse sibling tools by focusing on repo health analysis.

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?

Provides clear context on payment requirement and behavior when _payment is omitted. Does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, but the unique functionality and sibling diversity make this less critical.

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