GitHub MCP Server

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 states the tool gets details but doesn't specify what 'details' include (e.g., metadata, content, participants), whether it's a read-only operation, any rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic purpose.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence: 'Get details of a specific discussion.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (fetching a specific resource), the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values in the description. However, with no annotations and incomplete behavioral transparency, the description lacks context on usage scenarios, error handling, and differentiation from siblings. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps in providing a complete picture for effective tool selection.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'owner,' 'repo,' and 'number' parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter relationships or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get details of a specific discussion.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('discussion'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_discussion_comments,' which could cause confusion about which to use for retrieving discussion content versus comments.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_discussions' (for listing discussions) and 'get_discussion_comments' (for retrieving comments), the agent lacks explicit instructions on when this tool is appropriate, such as for fetching metadata or full discussion content versus other related operations.

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