Github Get Repo Stars Since

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: counts are based on weekly star history and resolve to whole UTC days, cost scales with page counts and window length, and truncated can be true under two distinct conditions. This is exactly the kind of operational nuance an agent needs.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and example prompt, then adds operational details. All sentences contribute useful information, though the cost explanation is dense and could be tightened. It remains appropriately concise for the complexity of the tool.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to describe return values, and it covers the important behavioral aspects: input format, defaults, cost, and truncation caveats. An agent can correctly invoke the tool without major gaps. Slightly more explicit mapping of top_n and max_repos to the described behavior would make it fully complete.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It explicitly documents the since format and default, clarifies username as the repo owner, and explains truncation as it relates to max_repos/listing limits. It does not explicitly walk through top_n or max_repos by name, but their roles are reasonably inferable from the description and schema defaults.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the repos owned by username that received the most new stars since a given date.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like github_list_repos by describing the star-ranking behavior and example prompts. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 clear context for when to use it: 'Answers prompts like which repos gained the most stars in the last 30 days.' It also gives the default since value and cost behavior, which helps an agent decide. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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