Analyze GitHub profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds behavioral context: it's slower, heavier, and uses live GitHub data, which is useful for an agent to manage expectations and resource allocation.

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?

Description is two sentences: first sentence states what it does, second sentence contrasts with sibling and gives use case. No wasted words, information is front-loaded.

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 has no output schema, description mentions key outputs (proficiency, roles, emails) and notes performance characteristics. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly, though could include a note on authentication requirements.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds value by clarifying that 'login' and 'username' are aliases: 'provide either', which prevents confusion and duplication.

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?

Description explicitly states the tool performs deep analysis of a GitHub profile, listing specific outputs: proficiency level, best-fit roles, extracted emails. It also differentiates from sibling tool get_developer by noting it's slower and heavier.

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?

Description clearly tells when to use: 'vet a shortlisted candidate', and contrasts with get_developer: 'Slower and heavier than get_developer', implying alternative for quick lookups.

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