import_github_core

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 states it downloads and adds to registry, and uses FuseSoC metadata automatically. It does not disclose whether existing cores are overwritten, authentication requirements, or error behavior on missing metadata.

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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. First sentence states the main action, second adds important post-import availability information. Highly concise and 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?

The description is brief and covers core functionality but lacks details on error handling, behavior when no .core file exists, or cleanup on failure. Given the tool's complexity (remote download, metadata parsing), more context would be beneficial.

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 100%, but the description adds value by clarifying the repo format (owner/repo), subdir for monorepos, and ref for branch/tag/commit. Examples like 'ultraembedded/core_uart' are helpful.

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 the tool downloads a GitHub repo and adds it to the local IP core registry, with automatic use of FuseSoC metadata. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_github_cores (search only) and import_fusesoc_core (likely different import source).

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 notes that after import, the core is available via get_ip_core and generate_ip, guiding subsequent usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare with the sibling import_fusesoc_core.

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