audit_repo_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the async contract, that a job_id is returned immediately, and the 60–120s expected runtime. It omits auth requirements and error/failure behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and async caveat, and the polling instructions are actionable. There is mild redundancy in restating the job_id return twice, but nothing wasteful enough to hurt.

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 async lifecycle, timing expectation, next-step tool, and result location are all covered, and an output schema exists so return-format detail is unnecessary. Missing only failure-path and permission context for a job-launching tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains repo_url accepts either a full GitHub URL or owner/repo shorthand, which the bare string schema does not convey. It's only one parameter, so the added meaning is sufficient.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start an OpenSSF Scorecard audit') plus the scope of what it evaluates, which distinguishes it from scan_licenses_and_vulns and generate_sbom without needing to name them. An agent can tell what this does from the first clause alone.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to poll get_job_status until status is completed and then read result, which is concrete when-and-how guidance. It does not state when to prefer this over the sibling scanning tools, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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