github

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the return format ('{success, content/stats/results}'), response cap (2MB), caching (10min), and the harvest option for saving to disk. It also clearly states authentication requirements for write operations, providing critical behavioral transparency for an agent.

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 well-structured with a concise opening sentence stating the overall purpose and return format, followed by a list of actions and important notes on auth, limits, and caching. It is efficient and front-loaded, though slightly lengthy due to the enumeration of actions, but every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (13 parameters, 8 actions) and absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: all actions, use cases, auth requirements, response limits, caching, and the harvest feature. Minor details like pagination for list_issues are omitted, but overall it provides sufficient context for correct tool invocation.

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%, so every parameter is already described in the schema. The description does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema; it merely lists actions and their purposes, which are already sufficiently documented. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it provides 'GitHub file and repo access via API', lists specific actions (fetch, analyze, search, issue management), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fx, web, and wiki by focusing exclusively on GitHub operations.

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 explicitly states use cases ('fetching source files, analyzing repo structure, searching code across GitHub') and lists all supported actions. It mentions that GITHUB_TOKEN is required for write operations and higher rate limits. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or provide direct comparisons to alternatives.

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