GitHub Activity

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 mentions retrieving 'recent' activity and 'public events', hinting at read-only and non-destructive behavior, but doesn't clarify aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what 'recent' means (e.g., time range). For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding operational constraints.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It lists the types of activities included (commits, issues, etc.), which adds useful detail without verbosity. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and scope but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format. Without annotations or output schema, more guidance on what the tool returns (e.g., structured data vs. raw events) would improve completeness, but it meets a minimum viable level.

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%, with both parameters ('limit' and 'include_details') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying retrieval of 'recent' activity, which isn't tied to specific parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's clarity.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get Duyet's recent GitHub activity including commits, issues, pull requests, releases, and other public events'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('GitHub activity'), and scope ('Duyet's recent'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_analytics' or 'web-search', which might also retrieve data. The specificity of targeting a particular user's GitHub activity is good but not contrasted with alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_analytics' (which might overlap for data retrieval) or 'web-search' (which could search GitHub), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context for selection among available options.

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