gist_starred

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 implies a read-only operation ('List') but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond parameters, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 without unnecessary words. It avoids redundancy and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an excellent example of conciseness in tool descriptions.

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's moderate complexity (listing with pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral details like authentication, return format, and error handling. The schema handles parameters well, but overall context is insufficient for a fully informed agent without additional cues.

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, with clear documentation for both 'perPage' and 'page' parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as default behavior or usage context. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 action ('List') and resource ('your starred Gists'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'gist_list' by specifying 'starred' gists, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'gist_get' which retrieves a single gist. The description is specific but could be more precise about sibling differentiation.

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 like 'gist_list' (for all gists) or 'gist_get' (for a specific gist). It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone. This minimal guidance is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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