scrape_github

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions extraction and skill building, implying read and write operations, but fails to clarify side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or what happens to existing skills. The 'token' and 'scrape_only' parameters are not explained, creating significant gaps.

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 at two sentences with no redundancy. However, the information could be better structured (e.g., bullet points) to improve scanability, and the phrase 'build Claude skill' is somewhat vague.

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 has 10 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, yet the description is minimal. It omits output details (though an output schema exists), parameter explanations, and scenario-specific guidance. Given the complexity and many siblings, the description is incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists extracted content but provides no explanation for the 10 parameters (e.g., repo, config_path, no_issues). The agent cannot determine parameter purpose from the description alone.

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 action 'Scrape GitHub repository' and the outcome 'build Claude skill', listing specific extracted content (README, Issues, Changelog, Releases, code structure). This distinguishes it from siblings like scrape_docs or scrape_video, providing a specific verb and resource.

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 (e.g., scrape_codebase, scrape_generic). No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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