social_get_github_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only states a basic get operation without revealing what data is returned, potential rate limits, data freshness, or whether it is read-only. This leaves significant ambiguity for such a simple description.

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 front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words, though it sacrifices depth for brevity. It earns a 4 because it is efficient and clear, but not maximally informative.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimal but still incomplete. It fails to explain what 'development activity' encompasses, which is essential for an agent to know if this tool fits the user's request. The lack of context around the GitHub data source and return format makes it hard to use correctly.

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 covers the only parameter (symbol) with a clear description and example. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('GitHub development activity'), making it clear what the tool does. However, it could be more precise by indicating what metrics are included (e.g., commits, PRs). It also effectively distinguishes from siblings like social_get_dominance, which focus on other aspects.

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 does not mention any exclusions or recommend alternatives, leaving the agent without context for selection among the many social_* tools.

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