open-context_get_github_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses caching behavior and that it fetches from GitHub API, but it does not mention other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The disclosure is partial.

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, compact sentence of 18 words that covers the core purpose. There is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 simple fetch tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about the resource and what is returned. It could mention the need for network access or API authentication, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by mentioning what the data includes (metadata, inputs, outputs), but does not significantly augment parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (GitHub Actions) and the action (fetch and cache information), listing what is included (metadata, inputs, outputs). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which target different technologies (e.g., Ansible, Docker).

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 when GitHub Action info is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. The sibling tools are domain-specific, so context is clear, but no explicit guidance is given.

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