GitHub repo health scan

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotency; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing price ($0.05/call), that it makes a network call to SWARM's shop, that SWARM_WALLET_KEY enables USDC payment on Base via x402, that the live quote is checked against SWARM_MAX_USD, and that charging occurs only on success. This is exactly the extra behavioral context an agent needs before triggering a paid, network-dependent call.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then price and payment mechanics. Every clause carries information, though the second sentence packs several distinct facts (network call, wallet key, chain, protocol, price cap, billing condition) into one long run-on.

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?

Payment and execution semantics are covered thoroughly, but with no output schema the description never indicates what the scan returns (report format, findings structure, scoring). For a paid scan tool whose result the agent must interpret, that gap is a real omission.

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?

There is one parameter, fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) including a URL example. The description only reinforces the 'public GitHub' constraint and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Static scan of a public GitHub repo') and enumerates what is checked: TODO/FIXME debt, oversized files, secret heuristics, hygiene. That is far more informative than the name alone. It does not, however, differentiate this tool from its generic siblings (utilities, summary, report).

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 by 'public GitHub repo' — the agent can infer the scope and that it must supply a repo URL. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to or away from the sibling tools, leaving selection to inference.

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