ci.create_github_annotations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The embedded '[workspace write][risk:write]' prefix openly signals that the tool performs a write and carries risk, which is meaningful transparency. It does not go into undo-ability or CI environment prerequisites, but for a simple annotation-emission tool the side-effect disclosure is solid.

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 with the risk/context prefix front-loaded. There is no filler or redundancy; every token contributes.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits parameter semantics, prerequisites like running inside a GitHub Actions environment, and the relationship between 'level', 'title', and 'findings'. An agent needs more context to invoke this reliably.

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 for the undocumented parameters. It only hints at the 'findings' array via 'from findings', and gives no meaning for 'level' or 'title'. With three parameters and one required, this is insufficient to let an agent construct a correct call without guessing.

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 names a specific verb ('Emit'), a specific resource ('GitHub Actions warning/error annotations'), and an input source ('findings'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling CI tools like ci.write_github_step_summary and ci.comment_pr, which target different GitHub surfaces.

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 usage in a GitHub Actions CI context where findings need to surface as annotations, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or conditions that would select ci.write_github_step_summary or ci.comment_pr instead.

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