github_create_repo

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 states the tool creates a repository but doesn't mention critical behaviors like authentication requirements (implied by 'authenticated user' but not explicit), potential side effects (e.g., initializing files if auto_init is true), rate limits, error conditions, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted verbiage.

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 creating a repository (a mutation operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or response format, nor does it provide usage guidance relative to siblings. For a tool that modifies state and has multiple parameters, more context is needed to ensure safe and effective use.

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 all parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain naming conventions, privacy implications, or auto_init details). According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new repository for the authenticated user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like github_create_comment or github_create_issue, which also create resources but of different types. The description is specific about what gets created but doesn't contrast with other creation tools.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication status), when not to use it (e.g., for existing repositories), or direct alternatives like github_get_repo for retrieval. The context is implied (creating a repo) but lacks explicit usage boundaries or comparisons with sibling tools.

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