github-mcp-plus

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.2.2
Disambiguation3/5
Many tools are distinct, but several have overlapping boundaries, e.g., issue_read vs get_pull_request, list_pr_files vs get_pr_diff, and add_issue_comment vs add_pr_review_comment. Descriptions help clarify some, but the large number of similar tools creates significant potential for misselection.
Naming Consistency4/5
The vast majority follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_, delete_). However, a few deviations like actions_list and actions_run_trigger break the pattern, and get_pr_diff is inconsistent with the more common list_/get_ pairing.
Tool Count2/5
At 73 tools, this server far exceeds the typical well-scoped count. While it covers many GitHub API endpoints, the sheer number makes the toolset unwieldy and likely to overwhelm agents, especially with many niche features (enterprise, codespaces, SSH keys) that could be omitted or bundled.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers repositories, branches, commits, issues, pull requests, releases, gists, users, organizations, webhooks, deployments, and more, providing extensive lifecycle coverage. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete branch, no list labels, no delete gist), but the overall surface is remarkably complete for GitHub operations.
Average 3/5 across 73 of 73 tools scored. Lowest: 1.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
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 does not mention permissions, idempotency, side effects, failure conditions, or what happens to existing releases. 'Create' implies mutation, but that is implicit; no additional behavioral context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It provides no useful structure or front-loaded information beyond the tool's name. A single phrase does not serve the agent's needs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), a one-sentence description is grossly inadequate. It lacks information about return values, required permissions, prerequisites like existing tags, and behavioral nuances. This is a severe completeness gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains 8 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any of them. It fails to clarify semantically meaningful options like draft, prerelease, generate_release_notes, or the relationship between tag_name and the release. The description adds no value beyond the parameter names and types already present in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a GitHub Release' is essentially a direct restatement of the tool name (create_release). It provides a clear verb and resource but adds no additional detail or differentiation from sibling tools like list_releases or get_latest_release. This is a tautology rather than a substantive purpose statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for creating a release. The usage is merely implied by the verb 'create', but there is no explicit instruction or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action, giving no information about authentication needs, return format, error behavior, idempotency, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence, which is efficient but severely under-specified. It provides no structural value (e.g., key requirements, inputs, or expected behavior), making it more a tautology than genuinely concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with six parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is wholly inadequate. It gives no context about required fields, the shape of config, event filtering, or the response, leaving the agent to guess.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 17% (only 'name' has a description). The tool description adds no parameter information, leaving six parameters undocumented. This fails to compensate for the sparse schema, making it hard for an agent to know what values to supply.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Create') and a specific resource ('a webhook for a repository'), which distinguishes it from other tools like list_repo_webhooks. It does not elaborate on the webhook's configuration or events, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 does not mention any prerequisites, complementary tools (e.g., list_repo_webhooks to verify creation), or scenarios where this tool is inappropriate. There is no usage context at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or reversibility, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at three words, but this brevity crosses into under-specification. While not as extreme as a single-word description, it lacks essential detail and relies on the tool name for meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is extremely sparse. It does not explain what following a user entails, for what platform, or what the response will be, making it incomplete even for a basic operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter 'username' with no description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's meaning, format, or constraints completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Follow a user' clearly states the action and object, and the verb distinguishes it from the sibling 'unfollow_user'. However, it adds little beyond the tool name and lacks context such as platform or effect, so it is only minimally clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states the action without any contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses only the basic action of listing branches. It does not mention pagination behavior, auth requirements, return format, or other behavioral traits. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to add meaningful transparency beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is indeed concise. However, it is more under-specified than appropriately concise, omitting necessary context that would justify its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, the minimal description is insufficient. It lacks information about return values, pagination, and parameter usage, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (owner, repo, page, per_page). It adds no meaning beyond what the parameter names themselves imply, failing to compensate for the absence of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists branches in a repository, specifying the verb 'list', the resource 'branches', and the scope 'in a repository'. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools, the resource itself is distinct enough for basic identification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_commits or list_tags, nor does it cover prerequisites or context for when this is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action and gives no information about pagination, authentication, rate limits, response format, or scope limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff. However, it is under-specified given the number of parameters, so it loses some points for not being appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and a 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse. It does not address pagination, role filtering, or any other contextual details required for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the parameters (org, page, role, per_page). The agent must rely entirely on parameter names and the role enum, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('members of an organization'), which is specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_org_teams, though the resource type is distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description is purely definitional.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It merely says 'List teams' and does not mention whether it requires authentication, whether it is read-only, any rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the return value looks like. The description is entirely silent on operational behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence: 'List teams in an organization.' It is front-loaded, free of redundancy, and appropriately sized for a simple list tool. Every word is relevant, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention pagination, the return format, or any operational details. While the tool is simple, the description should at least hint at the response type or note that it returns a paginated list. The current text is adequate only for a bare minimum.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 by explaining parameter meanings. It only hints at the 'org' parameter through the phrase 'in an organization' but fails to explain 'page' or 'per_page'. There is no mention of required parameters, parameter types, or how pagination works, leaving the agent without sufficient semantic information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'List teams in an organization.' This distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like list_org_members or list_packages_for_org by the specific resource (teams). However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so it misses the top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the function without any context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or when another sibling might be more appropriate. This is a minimal viable description with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it provides none. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated, what the response format is, or any authentication/rate-limit requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief and front-loaded, containing no wasted words. However, it is under-specified: a single sentence that essentially restates the tool name leaves out valuable details that could be included without added bulk.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is inadequate for a tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It fails to explain return values, pagination behavior, query syntax nuances, or how this tool fits among other search tools, leaving an agent with significant uncertainty.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'query' has a description), and the tool description adds no parameter information. 'page' and 'per_page' remain completely unexplained, and the description does not even hint at how to use the query syntax beyond the schema's example.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('GitHub users'), making the tool's basic function obvious. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling search tools like search_repositories or search_code, so it misses the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternative search tools. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, scenarios to avoid, or relationships to sibling tools like search_repositories or search_code.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutating action (removing a star) but does not mention permissions, idempotency, or the effect on the repository, which is a significant gap for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, its extreme brevity results in a lack of useful substance, making it only minimally acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
As a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter information, the description is insufficient. It only states the action and omits prerequisites, return behavior, and repository identification details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters (owner, repo) lack descriptions in the schema, and the description adds no explanation of these fields. With schema coverage at 0%, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the parameters underspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the clear verb 'Unstar' with resource 'repository', directly stating the action. It distinguishes from the sibling 'star_repository' by its opposite action, though it doesn't explicitly mention that relationship.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like star_repository. The intended use is implied by the verb, but there are no explicit use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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, but it only states the core action without covering permissions, side effects, response format, or error conditions. It essentially restates the tool name without adding contextual depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no redundant wording, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is slightly under-specified for a tool with six parameters, though this is more a completeness issue than a conciseness flaw.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is far too minimal. It does not explain the effect of the operation, optional parameters, or return value, leaving substantial gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on any of the six parameters (owner, repo, title, body, labels, assignees). It adds no meaning beyond the bare property names in the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create an issue in a repository' clearly states a specific verb (create) and resource (issue in a repository), making the tool's function unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_issue and list_issues by specifying the creation action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_issue or issue_read. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the action and destination but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., behavior if a fork already exists), authentication requirements, or that forks can be created for organizations (although the schema hints at this).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters and no annotations, so the brevity comes at the cost of completeness. It is not a tautology like 'Process', but it leaves out valuable context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description fails to explain key aspects such as return values, error conditions, the effect of the 'organization' parameter, or whether the operation is idempotent. It is minimally sufficient to recognize the tool's purpose but not complete enough for safe autonomous invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (only the 'organization' parameter has a description). The tool description adds no meaningful semantics for the required 'owner' and 'repo' parameters, and it does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions. The phrase 'to your account' vaguely relates to the 'organization' optional parameter but is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Fork a repository to your account' uses a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like sync_fork, which is a distinct operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sync_fork or create_repository. The description simply states what the tool does without any context on appropriate scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It claims to list 'all' review comments but does not mention pagination (which is implied by the 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), authentication requirements, or the read-only nature. The overstatement of 'all' without noting pagination is misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could include more actionable details without becoming bloated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description does not cover pagination behavior, return format, or the specific type of comments (inline code review vs. general issue comments). This is insufficient for a tool with non-trivial parameters and no structured metadata to rely on.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 parameter explanations. It fails to mention any parameters or their roles. The schema itself is self-explanatory, but the description adds no value beyond it, leaving the agent to infer required inputs without any textual support.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('review comments on a pull request'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_issue_comments or add_pr_review_comment, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 does not mention that this is for retrieving inline code review comments, nor does it distinguish from list_issue_comments or other PR-related tools. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists commits, but does not mention pagination, default branch behavior, response format, or that it is a read-only operation. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters. While conciseness itself is fine, the lack of necessary detail makes it less useful than it could be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is incomplete. It does not cover pagination, filtering, usage scenarios, or expected output, leaving the agent with significant gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 43%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not add meaningful detail about parameters; the phrase 'on a repository branch' vaguely hints at the 'sha' parameter but does not explain defaults, filtering options, or how other parameters like 'page' or 'per_page' behave.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'commits' and scopes it 'on a repository branch', clearly indicating the action and object. It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like get_commit or list_branches, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_commit or list_branches, nor any mention of prerequisites or typical scenarios. The description simply states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List email addresses,' which is already implied by the tool name, and fails to mention pagination behavior, return size, or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence but merely rephrases the tool name without adding operational detail. It is under-specified rather than concise, since it provides no value beyond the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no annotations and no output schema, yet the description omits return value details, parameter semantics, and any usage limitations. It is minimally viable but leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema includes two numeric parameters (page, per_page) with no descriptions, and the description does not mention them at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent cannot infer their purpose or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('email addresses') with clear scope ('for the authenticated user'), making the function's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which reference email addresses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or any comparison to other list tools. The agent is left without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List' without mentioning pagination, response format, authentication requirements, or any side effects. Even though 'List' implies read-only, the lack of any behavioral context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and resource. It is appropriately succinct, though it could add essential context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain pagination behavior, expected return structure, or authentication nuance, leaving the agent with insufficient context to fully understand and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has a 0% description coverage for the two parameters (page and per_page). The description does not mention these parameters at all, so the agent has no semantic clue about pagination controls. The description completely fails to compensate for the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List), the resource (GPG keys), and the scope (for the authenticated user). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like list_public_ssh_keys_for_authenticated_user, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other list tools or add_gpg_key_for_authenticated_user. The description provides no context about scenarios or exclusions, so the agent gets no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List invitations' without revealing whether it returns pending, past, or all invitations, how pagination works, or what the response format is. This is a significant gap for a list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and is easy to parse. However, it is too terse, missing useful context, so it does not earn a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not mention pagination behavior, what the list contains, or any permissions needed. A user would need external knowledge to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the parameters. While 'owner' and 'repo' are self-explanatory, 'page' and 'per_page' are not explained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('List') and a specific resource ('invitations for a repository'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which focus on repository invitations. However, it does not specify whether these are pending, accepted, or expired invitations, so it leaves slight ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the action without mentioning prerequisites, authentication requirements, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate (e.g., list_issue_comments for comments).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List tags' with no mention of pagination, read-only nature, sorting, lightweight vs annotated tags, or whether it returns a list of names or objects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It is well-structured and immediately clear, though its brevity limits the information conveyed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and a 4-parameter schema, the description is far from complete. It does not describe the return format, error scenarios, or pagination behavior, which are essential for a safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It fails to explain the required parameters (owner, repo) or optional pagination (page, per_page), leaving the agent to rely solely on property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List tags in a repository' clearly states a specific action (list) and resource (tags in a repository). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_branches and list_releases by the noun 'tags', though it does not explicitly call out those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus list_releases or other listing tools, nor any prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the action 'Unfollow a user' without revealing side effects (e.g., removal of a follow relationship), authentication requirements, or idempotency, offering minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and contains no filler, but it is under-specified to the point of bordering on a tautology. Every word earns its place, yet the minimal structure does not provide enough substance for effective tool selection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description still lacks important context such as the actor (authenticated user), the effect on the follow relationship, and any required permissions. It is not complete enough for reliable invocation without additional assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 parameter semantics. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's property name 'username'; it does not explain the expected format, the target user's identity, or any constraints. The parameter is self-evident but the description fails to add value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Unfollow a user' clearly identifies the action (unfollow) and resource (a user), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool follow_user. However, it does not explicitly state the scope (e.g., that it acts on behalf of the authenticated user), leaving slight ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like follow_user. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 does not mention side effects (e.g., triggering CI), required permissions, reversibility, or the outcome of creation. The simple verb 'create' implies a mutation, but no other behavioral traits are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words, making it efficient. However, given the tool's 11-parameter complexity, the one-line description may be too terse to serve as an adequate standalone guide, though it is not under-specified to the point of being meaningless.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only provides the basic action. It omits essential context such as what a deployment is, parameter semantics, and usage conditions, making it incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 9% (only 'ref' has a description in the schema), and the tool description adds no information about any of the 11 parameters. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the agent with minimal understanding of parameter meaning or relationships.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a deployment') with scope ('for a repository'), distinguishing it from sibling creation tools like create_repository, create_release, and create_pull_request. The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, prerequisites, or alternatives. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context from the schema or sibling tools without any explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention that updates require the sha parameter, that the operation commits changes, or any side effects. The description effectively restates the tool's name, offering no additional transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. While it is appropriately short, its brevity contributes to the lack of informative content, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), this one-sentence description is inadequate. It omits crucial context such as the commit behavior, the requirement of sha for updates, and any return value semantics. It barely covers the basic purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 57% of parameters with descriptions, and the description adds no parameter-related information. It does not clarify the critical distinction between create and update, such as the sha requirement for updates, nor does it explain the content format (e.g., base64). Since schema coverage is moderate and the description is silent, it fails to compensate for the gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb and resource ('Create or update a file'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_file and get_file_contents. However, it lacks explicit scope details such as the need for a commit or branch, but the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case (creating or updating a file) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like delete_file or get_file_contents. There is no exclusion criteria or alternative naming, but the function's name itself suggests its usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing output format, whether it returns the diff relative to the parent commit, size limits, or auth requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word serves a purpose, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it efficient yet somewhat under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema or annotations, the description should explain what 'raw diff' means and whether it's the commit's changes vs. cumulative. It also doesn't address potential large diffs or response format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes only `ref` (33% coverage), and the description adds no parameter-specific guidance. Owner and repo are left undefined, and the description doesn't clarify how `ref` maps to a commit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('raw diff of a Commit'), making the core function clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_commit and get_pr_diff through the specific 'raw diff' phrasing, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No context is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pr_diff or get_commit. There are no exclusions or usage scenarios, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get an organization's profile' and does not disclose what the profile contains, whether any side effects occur, or any access requirements. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to parse. However, it is minimal to the point of underspecification, but conciseness itself is well-achieved.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), a short description might suffice, but this one lacks essential context: no return value description, no edge cases, and no relationship to other organization-related tools. The agent is left with minimal information to invoke and interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter 'org' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not elaborate on what 'org' expects (e.g., name, slug, or ID), so the agent has no additional semantic clues beyond the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('organization's profile'), clearly indicating a read operation on a single organization. It is distinct from siblings like get_enterprise or list_orgs_for_authenticated_user, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus similar tools such as get_enterprise or list_orgs_for_authenticated_user. The description offers no context about prerequisites or intended use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry disclosure. It only says 'Read,' implying a safe operation, but doesn't mention return format, potential 404s, authentication requirements, or that it works for both issues and PRs. This is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It communicates the core action efficiently, though it could be more informative without much extra length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple with only three parameters, but the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain what the response contains, how issue_number works for both issues and PRs, or any caveats. Given no output schema or annotations, this leaves the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the parameters (owner, repo, issue_number). The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no extra meaning or context, forcing the agent to rely solely on the schema field names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads an issue or pull request in a repository. This distinguishes it from listing tools and creation tools, though it doesn't differentiate from 'get_pull_request' or clarify that 'issue_number' applies to both, which keeps it from being a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_pull_request' or 'list_issues'. The description gives no context about selecting this tool versus siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the operation is a read-only list, how pagination works, what the return structure is, or any rate-limit considerations. The behavior beyond the verb 'List' is left entirely to the agent's assumption.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is so terse that it borders on tautological, adding little beyond the tool name itself, which slightly reduces the score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has three parameters with zero schema documentation, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to provide any additional context about filters, return values, or usage scenarios. This is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool with correct arguments.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters (page, per_page, repository_id). The agent has no way to know the meaning, format, or constraints of these parameters from either the schema or the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('codespaces') with a specific scope ('for the authenticated user'). It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools because no other tool mentions codespaces, making it unambiguous and specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply restates the tool's function without adding decision-relevant context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only states the action. Does not disclose pagination behavior, default filtering, auth requirements, or any side effects. 'List' implies read-only, but does not explain that results are paginated or how environment/task filters affect output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object. It is appropriately sized for stating the core purpose, though it lacks detail that could be added without exceeding conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain pagination, filtering, or what is returned, leaving an agent without essential guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description fails to explain any of the 8 parameters. It only says 'for a repository' without connecting to owner/repo or describing optional filters like environment, task, ref, and sha.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'list' + resource 'deployments' + scope 'for a repository'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_deployment and other list_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use vs alternatives, no exclusions, no mention of filtering or pagination. Only implicit purpose from name/description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions 'optional filters' without revealing defaults (e.g., state=open), pagination behavior (page, per_page), or sorting options. For a listing tool with multiple parameters, this is insufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, but it sacrifices informative content for brevity, making it efficient yet under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 3 enums, no annotations, no output schema), the description is far too brief. It omits key details such as default state filtering, pagination limits, sorting options, and label filtering, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 38% (only state, labels, and per_page have descriptions). The description does not elaborate on any parameter beyond the vague phrase 'optional filters', failing to compensate for the low coverage. It doesn't mention that filters include state, labels, sort, or pagination.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List issues in a repository with optional filters', identifying the specific action (list), resource (issues), and scope (repository). It is not explicitly differentiated from sibling tools like search_issues or issue_read, but the verb and resource are specific enough to convey the tool's core purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as search_issues or list_issue_comments. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or alternative tools, so an agent has no context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List releases', implying a read operation, but it doesn't mention whether prereleases/drafts are included, how pagination behaves, or any rate limits. This is minimal disclosure beyond what the name conveys.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler words. It is well-structured and easy to scan, though it is sparse. The brevity is not a flaw in itself, but the content is under-specified for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide richer context. It fails to mention pagination, filtering (e.g., prereleases), or ordering behavior. For a list tool with four parameters, this is incomplete and leaves the agent unsure of expected response structure and edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds only 'for a repository', which clarifies that owner/repo identify the target repository. However, page and per_page are left entirely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List releases for a repository' clearly states a specific verb (List) and resource (releases for a repository). It distinguishes from siblings like get_latest_release by using the plural 'releases', but it doesn't explicitly name any alternative or clarify the exact scope beyond the repository.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_latest_release or list_tags. The description simply states what it does without providing context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool searches issues; it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or that the search API may return both issues and pull requests. The read-only nature is implied by 'Search' but not explicitly disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words, making it concise and easy to parse. However, it is somewhat under-specified; a bit more context about search scope or result behavior would improve completeness without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there are no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters with mostly undocumented semantics, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or the meaning of sort/order options, making it incomplete for a search tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only 'query' has a description), and the description adds no parameter details. The optional parameters page, per_page, sort, and order are left unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and explicit resource ('issues across GitHub repositories'), which clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_issues or search_repositories. It could be stronger by noting that search results may include pull requests or by mentioning global search scope, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_issues or search_repositories. The phrase 'across GitHub repositories' implies global search, but it does not explain exclusions, prerequisites, or when a different tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It fails to disclose pagination, filtering defaults, return format, or any side effects. While listing is inherently read-only, this is not explicitly stated, and no additional behavioral context is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, efficiently conveying the core purpose. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity, though it could modestly expand without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not mention the 'state' filter, the interpretation of 'ref', or the response structure, leaving the agent without enough context for safe autonomous use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only 'ref' has a description). The description adds no parameter semantics, leaving 'state' and other parameters unexplained. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage, so an agent cannot infer how to filter alerts.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List code scanning alerts for a repository' uses a clear verb and specific resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_issues or list_pull_requests. The scope 'for a repository' aligns with the required owner/repo parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states the action without context for tool selection among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 simply says 'Merge a pull request' with no information about permissions required, branch deletion behavior, merge conflict handling, or side effects. The mutating nature is implicit but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a concise single sentence that clearly states the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, though it could be slightly expanded to add useful context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no annotations, and a very sparse description. For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, the description does not cover return values, side effects, or operational context. It is far from complete for an agent to use it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 17% (only merge_method is described). The description adds no information about owner, repo, pull_number, commit_title, or commit_message. With most parameters undocumented and no compensation from the description, this is severely lacking.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Merge' on a specific resource 'pull request in a repository'. It distinguishes from siblings like create_pull_request and update_pull_request by specifying the merge operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., PR must be open and mergeable) or conditions for successful merging, nor does it differentiate from other PR-related tools beyond the verb 'merge'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only implies a mutating action ('Star') but does not mention authentication requirements, idempotency (e.g., behavior when the repo is already starred), response format, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits critical context such as whether the operation is reversible, whether it requires authentication, and what the expected response or error cases are. A more complete description would note these behaviors.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the property names 'owner' and 'repo'. While these names are somewhat self-explanatory in the GitHub context, the description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions or clarify the expected format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action and resource ('Star a repository'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like unstar_repository or list_stargazers, relying on the tool name for differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as unstar_repository or list_stargazers. There is no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'update', which implies mutation, but does not mention authentication requirements (beyond 'authenticated user'), partial vs. full update semantics, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, and the action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a simple update operation. However, it might be too terse, relying entirely on the schema for field details without adding any guiding context, which prevents a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the response will be, whether the update is partial or full, or any side effects. The description is not sufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 by explaining parameters, but it does not mention any of the 7 fields (bio, blog, name, etc.). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no value in clarifying their meaning, format, or constraints. This is a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the target resource ('the authenticated user's profile'). It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_me (read) and list_emails_for_authenticated_user (read-only operations). The verb+resource structure leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. It does not state that this is for modifying the authenticated user's profile as opposed to other resources. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the basic destructive action but fails to disclose that deletion happens via a new commit, requires the SHA, or is irreversible, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single clear sentence delivers the core message with zero waste. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse, though it lacks necessary supporting detail, that does not detract from its conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive 6-parameter operation without annotations or output schema, this description is critically incomplete. It omits usage context, prerequisites, required SHA, branch semantics, and commit behavior, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool safely and correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 50%, and the description adds no parameter details. The owner, repo, path, and branch parameters remain unexplained in both schema and description, so the agent cannot infer their meaning or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Delete' and clearly identifies the resource ('a file from a repository'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_file_contents and create_or_update_file. The action and target are unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor any prerequisites such as requiring the current blob SHA or a commit message. It does not mention branch behavior or conditions under which deletion might fail.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get information' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose authentication needs, error behavior, or what happens if the enterprise does not exist. This is minimal disclosure beyond the tool's name and basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence—'Get information for a specific enterprise'—with no fluff or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, and the key elements (action and object) are front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is still incomplete. It does not clarify the parameter format, the nature of the returned information, or any usage context. An agent would likely need additional schema documentation or an example to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter 'enterprise' with type string and no description. The description does not explain what this parameter should contain (e.g., ID, slug, name) or how it is used. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without necessary semantic information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get information for a specific enterprise' uses a clear verb (Get) and resource (enterprise), and the phrase 'specific' indicates it targets one enterprise rather than a list. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_org and get_repository, so no ambiguity exists.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool or how it relates to alternatives. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions under which another tool should be used instead. The only implicit hint is that 'specific enterprise' suggests the caller needs an enterprise identifier.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'get' and does not mention authentication requirements, return format, or edge cases like prereleases or repositories without releases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, making it concise. However, it is only a slight expansion of the tool name and does not add substantive information, so it is under-specified rather than appropriately informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return value, behavior when no release exists, or any important usage conditions, leaving an agent without essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the owner and repo parameters. Although parameter names are self-explanatory, no additional meaning or relationship is provided beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'get' with the resource 'latest release of a repository', clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like list_releases or create_release by emphasizing the single latest release.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_releases or list_tags. The description lacks any contextual direction or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only says 'List' and does not mention pagination, search filtering, authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, clearly stating the tool's primary purpose. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only states the basic listing purpose. It omits important context like pagination behavior, search capabilities, and output details, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain 'enterprise', 'page', 'per_page', or 'phrase' beyond what the schema already shows.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('audit log entries') scoped to an enterprise. It is distinct from sibling tools, none of which focus on audit logs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided beyond the core purpose. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions such as required enterprise permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states 'Search for code', but does not mention pagination, rate limits, result format, or any side effects (though unlikely). This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and to the point. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, though it does not waste words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema, no annotations, and a sparse parameter schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain return values, authentication requirements, or query syntax nuances, leaving the agent without crucial context for a complex API.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, with only the 'query' parameter having a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning for 'page' or 'per_page', failing to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches for code across GitHub repositories, using a specific verb ('search') and resource ('code'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_repositories and search_users.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'search', implying read-only, but does not mention pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a tool without annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified, lacking detail beyond the basic purpose, so while structurally clean, it does not enrich the reader's understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple search tool, the description is minimal and leaves out important context. There is no output schema, no annotations, and the description does not mention how results are returned, pagination behavior, or when to choose this over sibling search tools. The schema covers parameters but not usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining query, page, and perPage including examples and max values. The description adds no parameter information, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches for repositories on GitHub, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like search_code or search_users, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself by naming alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as search_code or get_repository. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this search is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'list' without revealing defaults (e.g., state defaults to open), pagination behavior, or potential rate limits. This is insufficient for a list tool with multiple options.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it is so brief it risks under-specification, but still serves the primary purpose of naming the operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is notably incomplete. It does not mention default states, pagination, sorting options, or the shape of the response. A more robust description is needed for an AI to effectively select and invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 14% (only 'state' has a description). The description does not explain any parameters, leaving owner, repo, page, per_page, sort, and direction without additional context. It merely hints at a repository but fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List pull requests in a repository' clearly specifies the action (list) and resource (pull requests) within a repository scope. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_pull_request (single PR) and create_pull_request.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving a collection of PRs but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives like get_pull_request for details. It does not mention filtering by state or other context, so the use case is only vaguely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'lists all workflows' without mentioning permissions, pagination, response format, or whether this returns workflow definitions or runs. For a read operation, it does not clarify what the caller receives or any rate-limit implications, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it an excellent example of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimal but still incomplete. It does not describe what the response looks like, whether results are paginated, or whether special access is needed. For a list tool, users would benefit from knowing the output structure, but this information is absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'owner' and 'repo' parameters beyond the implicit context of 'in a repository'. It adds no detail about required formats, defaults, or how these parameters map to the resource. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('lists') and clearly identifies the resource ('GitHub Actions workflows in a repository'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like actions_run_trigger (which triggers workflows) and list_check_runs_for_ref (which lists check runs), leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest a sibling tool for related tasks (e.g., triggering workflow runs or listing check runs). The context of when to use this tool is only implied by the purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing authentication requirements, validation rules, potential errors, or side effects beyond the obvious mutation. This is insufficient for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It conveys the core purpose without any fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and sparse parameter documentation, the description is minimally complete at best. It lacks essential context about behavior, return values, and errors.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the expected format of the 'key' parameter or the purpose of the optional 'title' parameter. The term 'public SSH key' gives partial context, but the title parameter is completely unaddressed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (add), the resource (public SSH key), and the scope (authenticated user). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool list_public_ssh_keys_for_authenticated_user, which is a read operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'add', but there is no explicit context or comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action without revealing potential side effects, authentication requirements, output format details, or behavior on errors, which is insufficient for full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant information. It gets straight to the point and is well-structured for quick parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple tool with three parameters and no output schema or annotations, so the description must cover more ground. It does not mention what the raw diff looks like, potential limitations, or error conditions, making it incomplete for an agent to use with full confidence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description does not explain the meaning or format of owner, repo, and pull_number. Although the parameter names are self-explanatory in a GitHub API, the description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already shows.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets the raw diff of a pull request, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_commit_diff (commit diff) and get_pull_request (PR metadata) by specifying 'raw diff' and 'Pull Request'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination, ordering, authentication, or what constitutes a contributor, offering only the bare verb phrase.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words or unstructured details, making it an appropriate size for the operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema or annotations, the description needs to explain return values and usage context; it does not. It omits pagination info, result structure, and any caveats, leaving the tool under-specified for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its 4 parameters, and the description adds no explanations for owner, repo, page, or per_page. The param names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'list' with the resource 'contributors' scoped to 'a repository', making its function clear and distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_stargazers and list_commits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'authenticated user' implying authentication is required, but does not explain pagination behavior, return format, or whether private gists are included. For a read operation, this is minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description lacks essential context. With no output schema and no annotations, it does not specify the return shape, pagination defaults, or that it likely returns an array of gist objects. The agent is left guessing about the response and parameter effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention 'page' or 'per_page' at all. The schema only provides types, leaving the agent without any explanation of what these parameters do. The description adds no value beyond the raw property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('gists') with a clear scope ('for the authenticated user'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_gist and other list tools such as list_branches or list_commits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving the authenticated user's gists but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., create_gist) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to mention return structure, pagination behavior, or explicitly confirm the operation is read-only. The verb 'list' implies safety but does not disclose response contents or potential edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence without unnecessary words. Every word contributes to the core meaning, achieving excellent conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the minimal description is incomplete. It omits pagination behavior, response format, and any operational nuances, leaving an agent to guess about the API's detailed behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only implicitly associates pull_number with a pull request, but it does not explain page, per_page, or disambiguate owner/repo. It adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (files changed in a pull request), making it specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like get_pr_diff or get_pull_request.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like get_pr_diff or list_pull_requests. It only restates the function without any exclusions or contextual hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only listing operation but does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication requirements, response contents, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool that likely has more behavioral nuance.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and directly states the tool's purpose, fitting the tool's simple nature.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse to be fully complete. It lacks information about pagination, return format, and any operational context, though the tool itself is relatively simple.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema field names. The phrase 'for a repository' hints at the owner/repo parameters, but there is no clarification of page/per_page semantics or formatting. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('webhooks for a repository'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_repo_webhook. It unambiguously states what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description makes the basic action obvious, it does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to other repository-related list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool submits a review with three possible outcomes, but omits critical behavioral details for a mutation: side effects like PR status changes, permission requirements, whether the review replaces an existing one, or what the response contains. This is insufficient for correct invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a parenthetical list, front-loading the core action and resource. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, mutation, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not mention what happens after submission, any required permissions, or whether the body is optional/conditionally required. The description leaves major gaps that could lead an agent to misuse the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (40%, only body and event have descriptions). The tool description adds no meaning for owner, repo, or pull_number, and the event types in parentheses merely restate the enum values. It fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters or explain any constraints (e.g., body required for REQUEST_CHANGES).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Submit a review'), the target resource ('a pull request'), and enumerates the three possible event types in parentheses. This directly maps to the 'event' enum and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_pr_review_comment (inline comments) and merge_pull_request.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as add_pr_review_comment for inline comments or other PR-related tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations to fall back on, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It fails to mention consequences (e.g., if branch exists, overwrite behavior), required permissions, or error conditions. The single clause is overly bare for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action and source reference, achieving high efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only a one-line description. It omits critical context like default behavior (from_branch defaults to default branch, which is only in the schema), potential errors, and safety implications. The description is insufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it confidently in all situations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (branch and from_branch have descriptions, repo and owner do not). The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema; it repeats the source reference concept already present in the from_branch parameter description. At this coverage level, the description should compensate more clearly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (create), the resource (branch), and the source reference type (branch, tag, or SHA). This specific wording differentiates it from other sibling tools and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description merely states the action without contextual cues, leaving the agent to infer applicability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the public/secret visibility option but omits critical details such as authentication requirements, that the gist is tied to the authenticated user, or what the response contains. The mutation nature is implied but not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Create') and resource ('gist'), with no redundant or extraneous words. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, no output schema, and a required nested parameter (files), the description is too sparse. It lacks usage context, return value expectations, and any behavioral caveats, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's role and implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67%, falling in the intermediate range. The description adds minimal value by clarifying the 'public' parameter with 'public or secret' and implying the 'files' parameter via 'gist', but it does not explain the nested structure of files or the description parameter beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Create' and clearly identifies the resource as 'gist'. The parenthetical '(public or secret)' adds a key distinguishing scope, setting it apart from sibling creation tools like create_repository or create_issue.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_gists for viewing existing gists or create_or_update_file for file operations. The description merely states the action without any contextual cues or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states that a pull request is created, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., CI triggers, branch requirements), permissions needed, or failure conditions. This is minimal transparency for a mutating action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the primary action. However, it is extremely terse and omits potentially useful context, so it is concise but at the expense of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters, 5 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain required inputs, return value, or any operational nuances. The schema provides some parameter descriptions, but the overall tool context is under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 57%, with 4 of 7 parameters described. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, and it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters (owner, repo, title). It neither explains their purpose nor provides any additional semantic context beyond what the schema already has.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('pull request') and location ('in a repository'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_pull_request and merge_pull_request. It unambiguously states the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the verb 'Create' and the sibling naming, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_pull_request, merge_pull_request). No contexts or exclusions are described.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only says it 'gets details' and does not mention whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or what happens for invalid refs. Since no annotations are available, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It earns its place by stating the core action and a key detail ('including files changed'). Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (3 required parameters, no output schema), the description provides a minimal but adequate overview. It identifies the target and a notable output element, but does not fully elaborate on what 'details' includes or the return shape. It is acceptable for a basic get tool but leaves room for ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'ref' is described). The tool description does not compensate: it mentions 'specific commit' but does not explain the role of 'owner', 'repo', or 'ref' beyond what the schema already states. It adds no parameter-level semantics, so value over the schema is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get details of a specific commit including files changed'. This uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('specific commit'), and differentiates it from siblings like list_commits (which lists multiple commits) and get_commit_diff (which focuses on diffs). It is unambiguous and distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_commits or get_commit_diff. There is no explicit context or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning pagination behavior, return format, authentication requirements, or potential differences from PR review comments.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks detail on pagination, response structure, or how to distinguish from PR review comments. Given the simple nature and no output schema, it is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter details. While parameter names like owner, repo, and issue_number are self-explanatory, the description does not clarify the meaning of page/per_page or how issue_number applies to both issues and PRs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists comments on an issue or pull request, using the specific verb 'List' and a defined resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_pr_comments by explicitly covering both issues and pull requests.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_pr_comments or add_issue_comment. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral details. It only states that it lists notifications, without mentioning default filters (e.g., unread only), pagination, or authentication requirements. The schema hints at read-notification behavior via the 'all' parameter, but the description does not disclose anything.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the simple functionality, and every word is purposeful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal and does not explain default behavior, such as showing only unread notifications unless 'all' is true, nor does it describe the return format or pagination. With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out important context for a non-trivial tool with four optional parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All four parameters are fully described in the input schema with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, but the schema coverage is 100%, so the schema is sufficient. Thus, the description meets the baseline without adding value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists notifications for the authenticated user. It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not differentiate from siblings because there are no other notification tools. It essentially restates the tool name but in plain language.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. The usage is implied: to list notifications. There are no sibling tools for notifications, so no exclusions are needed, but the description does not offer any context like typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. "List" implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention pagination, response format, authentication needs, or other behavioral details. It is not misleading but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single five-word sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it may be too terse given the lack of other documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters (2 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not mention what the returned list contains, whether filtering is possible, or any usage constraints. The description is minimally viable but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameter meaning. It only mentions 'organization', which maps to the org parameter, but completely ignores package_type and visibility. The enums in the schema are self-descriptive, but the description adds no value beyond them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ("List") and resource ("packages") with a clear scope ("for an organization"). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_branches or list_releases, making the purpose immediately obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, what alternatives exist, or any prerequisites. It is a bare statement of action without context for selection among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states 'List' and provides no details on pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or whether private stargazers are included. The minimal phrasing offers little beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and immediately states the purpose. Every word serves a function, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with no output schema and minimal parameters, the one-line description is minimally adequate. However, it omits details about pagination behavior, return format, and any potential edge cases (e.g., empty repos, repo not found). This leaves some gaps for an agent invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description gives no parameter-level information. While 'owner' and 'repo' are somewhat self-explanatory, and 'page'/'per_page' imply pagination, the description does not explicitly explain their roles or any constraints. The burden of compensation is unmet.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List users who have starred a repository' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying that this tool returns stargazers for a given repository. It also distinguishes from sibling 'list_starred_repositories' (which lists repos starred by a user), removing ambiguity about direction of the relationship.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks explicit exclusions or mentions of other similar listing tools. The usage context is merely implied by the action of listing stargazers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely states the update action without detailing side effects, required permissions, partial update semantics, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that gets straight to the point, listing the key updatable fields. No filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is under-specified. It lacks information about return values, error scenarios, and behavioral guarantees, making it risky for an agent to invoke blindly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists four updatable fields (title, body, state, base) which adds context beyond the raw schema, but it does not explain the meaning of each parameter or clarify that they are optional. Owner, repo, and pull_number are left implicit, though their names are self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'existing pull request' and enumerates the mutable fields (title, body, state, base). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_pull_request or merge_pull_request.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. The description implies usage but provides no explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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, but it only states the high-level action. It does not disclose that this will create a new workflow run, require write permissions, or have asynchronous effects. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about side effects or failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. It is appropriately concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, placing a heavy burden on the description. Yet the description does not mention expected behavior on success (e.g., returns a run ID), error conditions, rate limits, or any other contextual details. It is far from complete for an agent to use reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 60% (ref, inputs, workflow_id have descriptions), while owner and repo lack descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain how inputs relate to workflow_dispatch parameters or what 'ref' refers to in this context, leaving a gap for the undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Trigger') and the resource ('a GitHub Actions workflow run'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like actions_list (which lists runs) and other repository actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: to trigger a workflow run, use this tool. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. There is no mention of when this would be preferred over other workflow-related tools or of any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'Add' which implies a mutating operation, but it does not disclose any side effects, permission requirements, or response behavior. This is insufficient for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the action and target.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool lacks annotations and output schema, and the description does not provide details on key format, required input specifics, or expected return values. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the parameters. The parameter names 'armored_public_key' and 'name' provide some semantic hint, but the description adds no additional meaning about formats, constraints, or optionality.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('GPG key for the authenticated user'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_public_ssh_key_for_authenticated_user and list_gpg_keys_for_authenticated_user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its usage for adding a GPG key to the authenticated user's account, but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The distinction from the SSH key tool is implicit through the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only states the action itself. It omits behavioral traits such as whether labels must pre-exist, whether existing labels are overwritten or appended, and permission requirements. This is comparable to the update_drive example, which scored 2 for a mutation tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse to fully equip an agent. It lacks guidance on prerequisites, idempotency, and error conditions, making it incomplete despite the accurate one-line summary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 25% (only 'labels' has a description). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the action, and does not compensate for undocumented owner, repo, or issue_number. The labels parameter's schema description is helpful, but the overall parameter guidance is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'add' and identifies the resource ('labels') and target ('issue or pull request'), clearly distinguishing from siblings like remove_label and add_issue_comment. No ambiguity about the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context (issue or pull request) but does not mention when to prefer this over alternatives like remove_label or add_issue_comment. No exclusions or conditional usage are stated, leaving the agent to infer from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only says 'Create a new repository for the authenticated user,' which is a basic purpose statement. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or any implicit behavior like default settings or potential errors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and clearly states the object.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple creation tool with four scalar parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides just enough to understand the primary purpose. However, it lacks details about return values, failure modes, or preconditions. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, a bit more information would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 75%, so most parameters already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema sufficiently documents the parameters. The missing description for the 'description' parameter is not compensated by the tool description, but this is a minor gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Create' with a clear resource 'new repository' and scope 'for the authenticated user'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fork_repository, which creates a copy of an existing repository.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 simply states what it does without mentioning use cases, exclusions, or conditions under which it should be preferred over other repository-creation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'Get the contents' without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, how directories are returned (e.g., as a list of items), or that file content is typically base64-encoded. The description also omits pagination behavior for directories and error handling for nonexistent paths. This is a significant transparency gap given the absence of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clearly written sentence that front-loads the key action and target. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must provide context about return values and behavior. It fails to mention what the response contains (e.g., file content base64-encoded, directory listing as an array), pagination, or error scenarios. The tool can operate on both files and directories, but the description does not communicate these distinct behaviors, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation and result interpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only 'branch' has a description), so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning by indicating that 'path' can refer to a file or directory, but it does not explain the roles of 'owner' and 'repo' beyond the obvious (repository identifiers). It also fails to mention the optional 'branch' parameter or its default behavior. The description provides minimal added value over the bare parameter names, leaving agent with little semantic guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('contents of a file or directory in a repository'), making the tool's primary function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_repository_tree (which returns a tree structure) and get_commit (which returns commit details). The phrase 'file or directory' accurately captures the tool's dual capability, so purpose clarity is strong.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use this tool to read file or directory contents. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., get_repository_tree for folder structure, get_commit for commit history) and offers no exclusions or prerequisites. This leaves usage decisions to the agent's inference, so a middle score is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 essentially restates the tool name, adding only the membership scope. It does not mention pagination behavior (page/per_page), return format, authentication requirements, or rate limits, leaving important behavioral traits undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is perfectly concise for the minimal information it provides.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool is simple, the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter documentation creates significant gaps. The description only states the basic purpose; it does not explain pagination, what data is returned, or any behavioral nuance, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has two parameters (page, per_page) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention them at all. Since the schema provides no meaning and the description does not compensate, the agent gets no guidance on how to use these parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'organizations', and the scope 'authenticated user is a member of'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_org_members and get_org by specifying whose organizations are returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
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 the tool: to retrieve organizations the authenticated user belongs to. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the wording is specific enough to imply the correct usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action and scope, without mentioning write access requirements, side effects, response format, or what happens when required parameters are invalid. The description adds no transparency beyond the verb 'Add'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly communicates the tool's purpose without any fluff or repetition. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation action, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention whether a review must exist first, the immediate effect of the comment, or what the API returns. The context is incomplete for an agent to gauge the full impact of invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 63% (5 of 8 parameters described). The description slightly enhances understanding by mentioning the 'specific file/line' scope, which aligns with path and line parameters. However, it does not compensate for the undocumented standard parameters (owner, repo, pull_number) beyond what is typical.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear action verb 'Add' with a specific resource 'review comment to a pull request' and scopes it as 'inline comment on a specific file/line'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_pr_review, which handles general review submissions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical 'inline comment on a specific file/line' implies the tool's intended use for line-specific feedback, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning return format, authentication requirements, or potential side effects, which is insufficient for a mutation-ambiguous context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and communicates the essential purpose without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Since there is no output schema, the description should ideally specify what is returned. It only says 'get the authenticated user', which implies the return value but lacks detail about fields or behavior. This is minimally adequate for a simple getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to the rubric, the baseline score is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the authenticated user'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'update_authenticated_user' and other getters such as 'get_enterprise'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and there are no exclusions or contextual hints. The usage is only implied by the tool's name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'List', which implies a read-only operation, but fails to disclose authentication requirements, whether another user's stars are public, pagination behavior, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that starts with the verb and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, plus three parameters with only one documented in the schema, the description leaves critical gaps: pagination defaults, authentication nuances, and return type are all absent. For a simple list tool, this is still incomplete because the parameters are not explained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 33% (only username has a description). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema—'or another user' merely restates the existing schema description for username. page and per_page remain completely undocumented in both schema and description, so the description does not compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'repositories starred by the authenticated user (or another user)', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_stargazers (which lists users who starred a repo) and search_repositories. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by indicating the tool works for the authenticated user or another user via the username parameter. It implies usage context without explicitly naming alternatives, aligning with 'clear context, no exclusions.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, permissions, reversibility, or error behavior beyond the basic action. It clarifies the target resources (issue/PR) but omits important behavioral context for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool, the description covers the core action and scope, but it lacks information about edge cases, output, or prerequisites. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally acceptable but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has low description coverage (25%), but the description clarifies the meaning of issue_number by indicating it applies to both issues and pull requests. However, it does not detail the other parameters (owner, repo) or provide constraints/format. The 'name' parameter is already described in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Remove' and clearly identifies the resource ('a label') and the target ('an issue or pull request'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_label. It directly states the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool or mention alternatives. However, the phrase 'from an issue or pull request' implies the context of use for removing labels, and the sibling list provides related actions. There is no explicit exclusion or guidance on when not to use it, so usage is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it merges the default branch of upstream into the current fork, but does not mention side effects such as creating a merge commit, pushing changes, potential conflicts, or required permissions. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb 'Sync' and includes a clarifying parenthetical. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core operation but lacks information about return values or prerequisites such as having an upstream configured. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, this is a clear gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptive text for all three parameters (owner, repo, branch), so baseline is 3. The description's parenthetical about the default branch mirrors the schema's own note, adding no new semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Sync a fork with its upstream repository' and clarifies the action as merging the default branch. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like fork_repository or merge_pull_request.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a fork is behind upstream but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like creating a pull request or merging directly. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It lists fields that can be updated but fails to mention whether updates are partial or full, what happens if the issue does not exist, permission requirements, or the response format. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core function and key fields without any wasted words. It is clear and direct.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits essential context about required parameters, partial update behavior, error handling, and access requirements. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool in complex scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 13%, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names. It enumerates five of the eight parameters but does not explain required identifiers (owner, repo, issue_number) or the semantics of fields like state or labels. The description does not compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update an existing issue' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_issue and issue_read. The parenthesized list of updatable fields (title, body, state, labels, assignees) further clarifies the tool's scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The word 'existing' provides clear context that this tool is for updates, not creation, which implicitly distinguishes it from create_issue. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over update_pull_request or other alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adds some context about return content ('includes status like mergeable') and implies read-only behavior via 'Get'. However, it does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or the full scope of returned data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and a key detail. No wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (3 required params, no output schema), and the description gives a reasonable overview but is thin on return value specifics. It mentions 'detailed information' and 'status like mergeable' but does not list typical fields, leaving the agent to assume standard PR object structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the parameters owner, repo, and pull_number. While the names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get detailed information') and the resource ('a specific pull request'), and adds a distinguishing detail ('includes status like mergeable'). This differentiates it from siblings like list_pull_requests (list) and merge_pull_request (mutate).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: this is for retrieving details about a single pull request, as opposed to listing or modifying. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 does add one useful piece of behavior ('including parent if it's a fork'), but it does not disclose return structure, potential rate limits, or any other execution traits. This is a minor value-add over the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and the key extra behavior (parent if fork). No words are wasted, and it is perfectly scannable for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only repository fetch with only two obvious parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it omits parameter semantics and any hint of the return shape, leaving some ambiguity about what 'detailed information' means. It is adequate but not thorough, especially given the wide array of sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 lack of parameter documentation. It does not: it merely says 'specific repository' without explaining that 'owner' and 'repo' are required string parameters or how they combine to identify the repository. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantics beyond them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific repository'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by including the parent fork context, which is unique and not obvious from the tool name alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when detailed repository information is needed) but provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools to prefer as alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer basic usage, but it lacks exclusions or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds behavioral context by specifying 'full' and 'recursive listing of all files', but does not disclose response size, pagination, or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and scope. No fluff or redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a minimal but functional explanation. It states the recursive file list but omits details about return format or edge cases, making it adequate yet incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (branch has a description). The description does not compensate for the undocumented owner/repo parameters or clarify their format. It adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets the full file tree of a repository, with recursive listing of all files. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like get_file_contents (single file) and list_branches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for obtaining the entire repository structure but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions are stated, but the context is somewhat clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, and the description simply restates the tool's name without disclosing any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, return format, or authentication requirements. It does not go beyond what the tool name already implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is relevant and there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple list operation, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out pagination behavior and return value details. The presence of page/per_page parameters suggests the description should mention pagination to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema exposes 'page' and 'per_page' with no descriptions, and the tool description does not explain these parameters or how pagination works. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description contributes no additional semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('public SSH keys') and scope ('for the authenticated user'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like add_public_ssh_key_for_authenticated_user and list_gpg_keys_for_authenticated_user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies the tool is for retrieving SSH keys for the currently authenticated user, which is a distinct context from adding keys or listing GPG keys. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description states the action but doesn't disclose side effects, permissions, or return behavior. For a simple mutation, this is adequate but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single clear sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool with no output schema and minimal annotations; description covers the core purpose but misses behavioral context like authentication requirements or whether it returns the created comment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (body only). The description adds no parameter details beyond the self-explanatory names, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Add' and resource 'comment' with target 'issue or pull request', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_issue or add_pr_review_comment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is clear: use to add a comment to an existing issue or PR. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the name and description make the use case unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It states the read-only nature ('List') and the input scope, but does not disclose whether results include in-progress or concluded runs, pagination behavior, or response content. This is a gap given no annotations exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, 13 words, front-loaded with the action and resource, no redundancy. It earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list operation with no output schema or annotations, the description states purpose and scope but omits return format, pagination, or compatibility notes. It is adequate but leaves gaps that structured metadata would normally fill.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema describes only 'ref' (33% coverage), and the description reinforces the ref types (branch, SHA, tag) already present. It does not clarify 'owner' or 'repo', which are essential and lack descriptions. Since coverage is low, the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'check runs' and clearly scopes it to 'a specific reference (branch, SHA, or tag)' while adding the intent 'to see CI/CD status'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_commits or get_commit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: use when you need CI/CD status for a particular branch, SHA, or tag. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose and scope are evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![github-mcp-plus MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/shade-solutions/github-mcp-plus/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/shade-solutions/github-mcp-plus)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![github-mcp-plus MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/shade-solutions/github-mcp-plus/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/shade-solutions/github-mcp-plus)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/shade-solutions/github-mcp-plus'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server