Get GitHub connect URL

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. Beyond that, the description adds important behavioral detail: it returns an install URL that the user must open in a browser, and the flow cannot complete automatically. This is exactly the kind of context an annotations-only reading would miss.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: trigger condition, return/manual behavior, and exclusion case. The most important operational detail—that the URL must be opened by the user—is front-loaded after the trigger condition.

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 tool with no output schema, the description supplies the necessary return-value context: an install URL. It also explains the manual browser step and the case where the tool is unnecessary, leaving no meaningful gap for invocation.

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 takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description correctly does not invent parameter details.

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 a GitHub account to Lizard and returning an install URL. It is clearly distinct from repository-operation siblings like git_checkout, git_status, and repo_create, so an agent can identify its role without inspecting schemas.

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 opening sentence gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use this when the user wants to connect their GitHub account to Lizard, e.g. to deploy a private GitHub repo.' It also names a clear when-not condition: 'Lizard Git repositories need no connection.'

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