get_github_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what information is returned but lacks details on permissions required (e.g., public vs. private repos), rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and includes a useful detail about inputs and requirements. Every part of the 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a read-only tool. It clarifies the scope (detailed info about a specific action) but doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs or response structure. For a tool with 5 parameters and no structured safety hints, it should provide more context about usage constraints.

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 schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify 'path' defaults or 'token' usage scenarios). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific GitHub Action, including inputs and their requirements.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('GitHub Action') with additional detail about what information is retrieved. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_github_actions' (plural vs. singular).

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_github_actions' (which likely lists multiple actions) or 'trigger_github_action' (which executes an action). There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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