human_interject

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool fetches from GitHub, adds to debate context, and detects which role was replied to. It also mentions a feature flag that can disable the tool. However, it does not disclose side effects like whether the debate state is mutated, whether the comment is permanently stored, or any permission requirements.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args block is useful and the note about the feature flag is relevant. It is slightly repetitive ('Inject... as context' vs 'Fetches... and adds to debate context') but overall efficient.

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 tool has 4 required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema. The description covers the core behavior and parameter meanings, but lacks details on return values, error conditions, and the exact distinction between discussion and issue IDs. Given the complexity of GitHub API interactions, more context would help an agent call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for all four parameters in the Args block, but these are terse and mostly restate the parameter names (e.g., 'thread_id: The debate thread to inject into'). It does not explain formats like 'DC_...' beyond a parenthetical, nor how target_id differs between discussions and issues in practical terms.

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 states a specific verb ('Inject') and resource ('human GitHub comment into active debate as context'), and clarifies it fetches a comment and adds it to debate context. It distinguishes itself from siblings like github_sync_debate by focusing on injecting a single human comment, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 implies when to use it: when a human comment needs to be injected into an active debate. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like github_sync_debate. The note about GITHUB_TOOLS_ENABLED=false provides a conditional usage constraint, but no explicit comparison to sibling tools.

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