gh_info

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the specific outputs returned but does not disclose extra behaviors like authentication requirements or rate limits. It adds some value but not rich context, consistent with the lower bar set by comprehensive annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that precisely conveys the tool's purpose with zero waste. It earns its place entirely.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the essential scope completely. It does not need to explain return formats since the output schema handles that. For a zero-parameter info tool, this is fully adequate.

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 tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and per the rubric, zero parameters warrant a baseline of 4. There is nothing more to add.

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 it returns three specific pieces of information: gh CLI version, authentication status, and active account. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on repositories, issues, PRs, etc.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, but its zero-parameter nature and focus on the gh CLI environment make it obviously for checking setup. Siblings are all domain-specific, so there is no real overlap, but explicit exclusion is missing.

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