edgegate_setup_bg_github_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains what is generated (prerequisites, YAML, secret commands) and the device requirement, but doesn't mention any side effects, permissions, or whether the setup modifies existing files. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Generate the Behavioral-Gate GitHub Actions setup') and specific deliverables. The 'Unlike...' clause adds crucial context without extra fluff. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 9 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, placing a heavy burden on the description. It explains the high-level purpose and outputs, but omits parameter-specific guidance and return formats. While it's complete enough to understand the tool's role, it doesn't fully cover the information needed to invoke it correctly for complex setups.

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 only 33%, with only api_url, adb_serial, and runner_label having descriptions. The description does not compensate for the remaining 6 parameters, such as device_label, system_prompt, and artifact IDs. It mentions 'device attached' and 'self-hosted runner' but doesn't connect these to specific parameters, leaving users to infer semantics.

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 what the tool does: generate the Behavioral-Gate GitHub Actions setup, listing specific components (self-hosted-runner prerequisites, workflow YAML, gh secret commands). It also distinguishes this from the standard run gate, making it easy to identify as the correct tool for BG setups.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (for BG GitHub Actions setup) and contrasts it with the standard run gate, noting that BG requires a self-hosted runner with an attached device. It doesn't explicitly mention alternative tool names, but the distinction is clear enough to guide selection.

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