Get GitHub connect URL

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond those hints: it returns a URL and cannot complete the connection automatically. This prevents an agent from assuming the action is finished after invocation.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The usage trigger is front-loaded, and the critical behavioral caveat about manual browser opening is stated immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool that returns a URL, the description covers when to use it, what it returns, and the essential follow-up action. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing more to document. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning; the baseline score for a parameterless tool applies.

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 states a specific action and resource: connecting the user's GitHub account to Lizard, and explicitly says the tool returns an install URL. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_checkout or git_status, which deal with repositories rather than account linking.

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 gives an explicit trigger ('when the user wants to connect their GitHub account') and adds the important constraint that the URL must be opened by the user manually. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool appears to offer a comparable connection flow.

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