github_repo_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses billing ('billed to your own Apify account: ~$0.002 per result') and the hidden cost behavior of the optional flags ('one extra API request per repo'). It does not cover auth requirements or failure handling for invalid repos, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields before the pricing tail. Dense but nearly every clause earns its place; the pricing detail is slightly tacked on but remains relevant to the agent's invocation decision.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description must convey return contents, which it does by listing the reported metrics and the one-row-per-repo shape. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it omits error behavior for unreachable or private repos.

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 four parameters thoroughly, including defaults and limits. The description adds only marginal meaning (org expansion, cost implications of releases/contributors), consistent with the baseline 3 when the 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 names a specific resource (GitHub repository health & activity), enumerates exactly what is returned (stars, commit activity, contributors, latest release, community-health files), and states the output shape ('one scored row per repo'). It also handles the org:<name> input mode inline, which distinguishes it from github_trending_scraper.

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?

It explains the org:<name> expansion and gives per-flag cost tradeoffs ('turn it off to save requests'), which implies usage context, but it never states when to prefer this over github_trending_scraper or when the report is the wrong tool. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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