get_global_advisory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action of retrieving an advisory and provides a docs link, but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, return value structure, or any edge-case behavior.

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, consisting of one informative sentence and a documentation link. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, with every word earning its place.

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?

The tool is a simple single-parameter getter, and the description covers the what and by-which-ID. However, since there is no output schema, the description could have mentioned what the returned advisory contains (e.g., CVE, severity, description), which is omitted, leaving the user to rely on the docs link.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the ghsa_id parameter including an example. The description reinforces the parameter's role ('by GHSA ID') but adds no additional semantic meaning 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 clearly states the tool gets a global GitHub security advisory by GHSA ID. The verb 'Get' and resource 'global GitHub security advisory' are specific, and the qualifier 'global' distinguishes it from repository advisories in sibling tools like get_repository_advisory.

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 context is implied through the word 'global' in the tool name and description, suggesting this is for global advisories rather than repository-specific ones. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this tool over list_global_advisories or get_repository_advisory.

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