github_api

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

No annotations exist; the description notes token usage but omits important traits like potential destructive actions (DELETE method), error behavior, rate limits, or response format. Fails to fully disclose behavioral implications for a tool that can mutate resources.

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: first states purpose, second provides context. No wasted words, front-loaded, and easy to parse. Efficient for agent consumption.

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?

Despite no output schema, the tool is a generic API caller; return values vary by endpoint. However, missing details on error handling, authentication failures, and response structure. Annotations could supplement, but absent. Adequate but incomplete.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds only token context ('Uses the GitHub token from local_profile.json'), which is helpful but not extensive. Baseline 3 applies as 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Call GitHub REST API directly.' It specifies the resource (GitHub API) and the action (call), leaving no ambiguity. With no sibling GitHub tools, differentiation is not needed.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'For operations not covered by the GitHub MCP server, or when it's not running.' This provides clear context and alternatives, guiding the agent effectively.

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