Inspect GitHub CLI publication authentication

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a valuable non-obvious behavioral guarantee—'SFL never reads or prints the token'—which is security-relevant context an agent needs before invoking an auth-related tool. This goes meaningfully beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads the core purpose, and the second delivers the critical security guarantee. Every word earns 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?

For a simple zero-parameter, read-only status check with rich annotations, the description covers what is checked and the sensitive-token behavior. The only omission is a description of the return value format, but no output schema exists and this is a minor gap for a status probe.

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, so there is nothing for the description to document about inputs; the rubric baseline of 4 for 0-param tools applies. The description instead clarifies what is being checked, which is the relevant semantic content for a parameterless status probe.

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 uses a specific verb ('check') with a specific resource ('official gh login and central repository permissions'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It inherently distinguishes itself from the sibling figure_library_github_auth_instructions by being a status check rather than instructional content. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so some differentiation is left to inference.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. Related siblings such as figure_library_source_status and figure_library_github_auth_instructions exist, and the description does not clarify when auth-status is the right choice over them. Usage context is only weakly implied by the 'read-only check' framing.

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