trawl_connect_github

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it: it says nothing about GitHub authentication/token requirements, whether connecting triggers an immediate crawl/index, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens if the owner is already connected. 'Add ... as a source' implies mutation but discloses no side effects or safety profile.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and target are stated immediately. It is efficient but borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits essential context: auth needs, whether ingestion/sync happens automatically, and expected outcome. Sibling tools handle the follow-up discovery, but the agent is not told any of that.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains owner, repo, pool_name, and the include/exclude lists, making 3 the baseline. The description's phrasing ('account, org, or repo') loosely maps to the owner/repo distinction but adds no syntax, format, or interaction details (e.g. how include_repos and exclude_repos conflict) beyond the schema.

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 ('Add') and resource ('GitHub account, org, or repo as a source for a pool'), which is clearly distinguishable from sibling source-management tools like trawl_list_sources and trawl_sync_sources. It stops short of naming those siblings or clarifying how this differs from trawl_crawl_web/ingest tools, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus trawl_sync_sources, trawl_list_sources, or trawl_ingest_url, nor any prerequisites (e.g. must the pool already exist?). The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

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