github_action

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only mentions 'Interact with the GitHub REST API' and lists actions. No disclosure of rate limits, authentication requirements (though schema hints), idempotency, or side effects (create issue is write but not flagged). Significant gap for a multi-action tool.

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?

Single sentence, 20 words, front-loaded with service name and action list. Efficient but could be clearer with bullet points. No waste, appropriately sized.

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?

Tool has 12 parameters and no output schema or annotations. Description lacks return format, pagination info, parameter interactions, or action-specific details beyond names. Incomplete for an AI to fully understand usage without referencing schema heavily.

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% (all 12 parameters described). Description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema; it only lists high-level actions. Baseline 3 applies as schema already covers parameters.

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?

Description clearly lists specific GitHub API actions (search repos, get repo details, list/create issues, list PRs, get user profiles, list gists, search code) and distinguishes from sibling gitlab_action (GitLab). Verb 'Interact with the GitHub REST API' plus action enumeration provides specific verb+resource.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The action list implies usage for GitHub operations, but lacks exclusions or alternatives. Sibling tools are for other services, so the context is somewhat clear, but no explicit guidelines are provided.

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