check_repo_starred

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 precisely explains the return shape ({ starred: true/false }), the exception for 404 responses (treated as not-starred, not an error), and the only error conditions (401/403 or unexpected). This is excellent transparency for a read-only check.

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 concise and well-structured: four sentences covering purpose, return value, error behavior, and a docs link. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy, and the most important content is front-loaded.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fully self-contained. It explains the return value explicitly, details error semantics, and links to official documentation. No critical context is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (owner and repo) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema states, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Check whether the authenticated user has starred a given repository', stating a specific verb, resource, and scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like star_repo, unstar_repo, and list_starred_repos, which either mutate or list starred repositories.

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 clearly implies usage for checking a single repository's starred status, making the context evident. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of full exclusion criteria.

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