get_repository_advisory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is transparent. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as error conditions (e.g., 404 if not found), rate limits, or response format specifics. The docs link provides a resource, but the description itself adds little beyond the implicit read-only nature.

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 a single sentence that delivers the essential purpose, followed by a documentation link. Every word earns its place, it is front-loaded with the action, and the link provides additional details without cluttering the description.

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 GET-by-ID tool, the description and schema are largely sufficient. The tool has 3 required parameters all documented, no nested objects, and no output schema. The description could optionally mention what is returned, but the name and operation imply the advisory. The provided docs link compensates for any missing detail, making it adequately complete for an agent.

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%, with each parameter (owner, repo, ghsa_id) having a clear description. The description text only adds 'by GHSA ID', which reinforces the key parameter role but does not provide extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the 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 'Get a repository security advisory by GHSA ID' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('repository security advisory') with an identifying parameter (GHSA ID). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_repository_advisories' (list vs. get) and 'get_global_advisory' (repository vs. global).

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 like list_repository_advisories or get_global_advisory. It simply states the operation without any context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations. The only implicit hint is that a GHSA ID is required, but no explicit usage criteria are given.

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