Get GitHub connection status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context (it spans account-level GitHub connection state and per-service tracking). It says nothing about what the response contains or whether the call can be slow/expensive against GitHub, and there is no output schema to cover that gap.

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, no filler, with the primary trigger front-loaded and the alternative-route note trailing where it belongs. 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 read-only status tool with strong annotations and one parameter, the call itself is safe to make. However, an agent cannot predict the shape of the result (connection state vs. per-service repo/branch list) and gets no format hint for the project argument, both of which matter for a status-reporting tool with no output schema.

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 0% for the single required 'project' parameter. The description implies that scope ('each service in a Lizard project') but never states whether the value is a project name, slug, or ID, nor what happens if the project has no GitHub-linked services. Partial compensation only.

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 the resource precisely: the account's GitHub connection status plus the repo/branch each service in a Lizard project tracks. That is more specific than the title alone and lets an agent distinguish it from the git/repo siblings. It reads as a return-value statement rather than a crisp verb, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Explicit trigger ('Use this when the user wants to see...') plus an alternative route: for Lizard-hosted repos use repo_list / repo_show. That is clear when-to-use and where-else-to-go guidance. It does not state an explicit exclusion (e.g. 'do not use this to check out or connect repos'), so it is not full when/when-not coverage.

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