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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavior. It only states the extraction action but says nothing about what happens with invalid or non-GitHub URLs, whether the tool validates input, or what it returns. This leaves the agent guessing about important behavioral boundaries.

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, tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and wastes zero tokens, which is ideal for quick agent parsing.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain return values, error behavior, or how parameters like ref, city, or json relate to parsing owner/repo. This is insufficient for full contextual completeness given the tool's complexity.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic burden.

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 ('Parse') and a clear resource ('owner and repo from a GitHub URL'). It distinctly separates this tool from sibling shape/parse tools like domain-shape, figma-url-shape, and jira-key-shape, leaving no ambiguity about what it extracts.

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 this tool is used when a GitHub URL needs owner/repo extraction, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives such as normalize-url or browser-url-ok. The usage context is inferable but not stated.

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