github_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention authentication requirements beyond the token, rate limits, side effects of write operations like creating issues, or data volume implications. This is insufficient for a tool with 12 parameters and multiple actions.

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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently lists the tool's actions, avoiding unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the list format could be more structured for readability.

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?

Given the complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, multiple conditional actions), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the 'action' parameter determines required fields, pagination, or the nature of returned data. The schema partially compensates, but the description adds little context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters; it only lists action names. No parameter relationships or dependencies are explained.

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 it interacts with the GitHub REST API and lists specific actions (search repos, get repo, list issues, etc.), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it groups many actions into one tool without differentiating from similar tools like gitlab_action, so it's not a perfect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain which action to choose based on context. It simply lists actions, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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