zenhub_get_owner_by_gh_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic lookup action without mentioning return format, possible return types (user vs. organization), authentication requirements, error behavior, or any side effects. The description is minimally informative beyond the purpose.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it could be slightly expanded to include usage guidance or return type without losing conciseness, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not specify what the lookup returns (e.g., owner object with name, ID, type), whether it can return both users and organizations, or any error conditions. The description lacks sufficient information for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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% description coverage, with the parameter 'github_id' described as 'GitHub user/organization ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond this, essentially paraphrasing 'by GitHub ID'. With high schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not improve upon it.

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 uses a specific verb 'Lookup' and clearly identifies the resource as 'GitHub user/organization' and the lookup method as 'by GitHub ID'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'zenhub_get_owner_by_login', which uses a login string instead of a numeric ID.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling 'zenhub_get_owner_by_login'. While the parameter name and sibling name imply differentiation (numeric ID vs. login), the description does not state this explicitly, leaving the agent to infer usage context without clear direction.

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