github_trending_ai

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds significant value: rate limits per auth state, return format details (JSON structure with all fields), and that no auth is required. No contradictions.

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 succinct and well-organized: purpose first, then context, then parameter list with args, finally return format. Every sentence adds value, no filler.

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 tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all aspects: what it does, when to use, auth, parameters with defaults, return shape. The return format is explicitly described, compensating for the 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?

Although the input schema has descriptions for each property (contradicting the 0% coverage signal), the description's parameter block reinforces meanings with examples (e.g., topic 'llm', 'mcp') and clarifies sort options. It adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Search GitHub for trending repositories by topic.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (arxiv, hn, lobsters, tech_signal_digest) by focusing on GitHub and trending topics, with a note about adoption signals.

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 context on when to use (surge of starred repos as adoption signal) and includes rate limits and auth options. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct alternatives, though sibling names imply different platforms.

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