Get GitHub connection status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying what information is returned (connection status and per-service repo/branch), but it does not disclose potential failure modes, output format, or operational nuances.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the usage trigger and delivers the tool's purpose without filler. Every word earns its place, and the structure is optimally scannable.

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 read-only status tool with one simple parameter, the description covers the user intent, the input concept (project), and the returned information. No output schema exists, so the description's explicit mention of the output is sufficient.

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% and there is one required parameter, 'project'. The description references 'a Lizard project', which gives some semantic context for the parameter, but it does not explicitly define what a valid project value is or how it should be supplied. The compensation is partial.

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 uses a specific verb ('see') and names the exact resource: GitHub connection status and the repo/branch each service tracks. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like git_connect and git_checkout by focusing on status rather than action.

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 explicitly opens with 'Use this when the user wants to see...', which is a clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intent is unambiguous and the sibling set makes the differentiators obvious.

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