Github Search User

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it uses the GraphQL API, which is a minor behavioral detail, but it does not disclose things like rate limits, result shape, or whether partial username matches are supported. With annotations carrying the main safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The workflow note is a single extra sentence that adds a convention, though it is somewhat cryptic. No wasted words, but the workflow reference could be clearer.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only search tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly sufficient. However, the workflow note is vague and the description does not clarify what the search returns or how to interpret the result. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the missing usage guidance and parameter semantics keep it from being 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 must compensate for the undocumented 'username' parameter. The description says 'Search for a GitHub user by username,' which confirms the parameter's role, but it does not add details like case sensitivity, exact-match requirements, or whether the username can include special characters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's bare parameter name.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search for a GitHub user by username using GraphQL API.' This clearly distinguishes it from issue/PR search tools like github_search_issues_prs, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative. The mention of GraphQL API adds a small implementation detail but doesn't confuse the core purpose.

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 mentions a workflow convention ('github_get_skill('user-activity')') but that is a follow-up action, not a usage condition or exclusion. There is no explicit context for when this tool is preferred over other search or user-related tools.

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