Show official GitHub CLI authentication instructions

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds a meaningful non-obvious behavioral trait: it never launches a browser or login process. This goes beyond the annotations by informing the agent that the tool has no interactive side effects.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words, and the key behavioral constraint ('never launches a browser or login process') is front-loaded in the second sentence. Every sentence adds value.

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 zero-parameter tool with annotations covering its safety profile, the description is complete: it tells the agent what the tool returns and what it does not do. No output schema exists, but the tool's simple nature means no further detail is required.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately avoids irrelevant parameter detail.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return a terminal command for the user to run,' and the title/tool name clarify it concerns official GitHub CLI authentication instructions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like figure_library_github_auth_status, which checks authentication status rather than providing instructions.

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 implies its use case—when a terminal command for authentication instructions is needed—and notes it never launches a browser or login process, which hints at when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state conditions for choosing this tool over sibling tools, so usage guidance remains implied rather than direct.

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