get_github_user

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

There are no annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, rate limits, or required permissions. The tool appears to be a simple fetch, but without explicit disclosure, the agent cannot assess side effects or constraints. This fails to carry the behavioral transparency burden.

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, concise sentence that packs in the essential information: what it does, the input method, and the output scope. No unnecessary words or redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

The description provides a partial view of the output (repos, followers, bio, account age) but does not mention error handling, return format, or any limitations. Since there is no output schema, the description should compensate more fully. However, given the simplicity of the tool, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 already provides clear descriptions for each parameter ('GitHub numeric user ID' and 'GitHub username (login)'). The tool description adds meaningful clarification that either parameter can be used, reinforcing the intended usage. This goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions, earning a high score.

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 function: 'Fetch GitHub user profile' and specifies the input method ('by username or numeric ID') and the key data returned ('repos, followers, bio, account age'). This is a specific verb+resource statement that distinguishes it from other tools in the sibling list.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling tools are clearly different (e.g., token info, pool liquidity), the description does not state conditions, exclusions, or preferences. It only describes the basic function, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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