ads_github_contribution_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose an important safety trait: it shows status "without publishing anything." It does not cover permissions, whether local Git state is modified, rate limits, or what the response contains beyond a high-level description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single efficient sentence with the key scope and safety constraint front-loaded. Every phrase adds useful information: what is shown, context (local Git and fork setup), and the no-publish guarantee.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple no-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description gives enough high-level context about what is inspected and confirms it does not publish. It could say more about the return shape or whether it is purely read-only, but the essential behavior is covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ("Show") and names the resource clearly: local Git changes and GitHub fork setup. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling setup/create-PR tools by framing the action as status-only and explicitly "without publishing anything," though it does not name those alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: the tool is for inspecting current Git/fork state before taking action, and the phrase "without publishing anything" signals a read-only check. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of ads_github_contribution_setup or ads_github_contribution_create_pr.

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