trigger_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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'trigger' and 'custom inputs,' which implies a write operation, but lacks details on permissions required (beyond the token parameter), rate limits, whether the action is idempotent, what happens on failure, or the expected response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Trigger a GitHub workflow dispatch event') and adds necessary context ('with custom inputs'). There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the tool's function without redundancy.

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 of triggering GitHub actions (a write operation with multiple parameters and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or response structure, which are critical for an agent to use the tool effectively. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall completeness is poor due to missing operational 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond implying that 'custom inputs' map to the 'inputs' parameter, but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints not covered in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('trigger') and resource ('GitHub workflow dispatch event') with additional context ('with custom inputs'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_github_action' or 'enable_pull_request_automerge' by focusing on initiating workflows rather than retrieving information or modifying settings.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implied for triggering workflows, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a GitHub token with specific scopes), when not to use it (e.g., for manual triggers vs. automated ones), or how it differs from other workflow-related tools in the ecosystem.

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