Github Api Read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: reads are governed by the token's scopes and permission failures surface the missing scope name. It says nothing about rate limiting or pagination of list endpoints, which would have pushed it higher.

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 core capability and the sibling exclusion are front-loaded in the first sentence, with the skill pointer last. 'See #543' is opaque to an agent and is the one piece that does not earn its place, but the remaining text is tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shapes need no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. For a zero-required-parameter passthrough tool, the description covers purpose, fallback positioning, auth behavior, and where to find conventions; nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 path, params, graphql, variables, and max_bytes are already documented in the schema, including the mutation refusal and byte cap. The description adds no syntax, path-format, or parameter-interaction detail (e.g., that path and graphql are mutually exclusive), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Sends a GET to any path under api.github.com') and the GraphQL variant in the same breath. The clause 'for an endpoint no other tool covers' explicitly separates it from the many specific siblings like github_api_write, github_api_delete, and the typed getters.

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?

Gives a clear selection rule: use this only for endpoints not covered by another tool, which implies the higher-level siblings are preferred. It lacks an explicit pointer to github_search_api_routes for discovering routes, and no when-not conditions are spelled out beyond the fallback rule.

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