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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that it parses owner and repo, but does not describe the return format, error behavior, handling of non-GitHub URLs, or whether the input URL is normalized.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not specify the result shape or failure behavior. Additionally, the nine-parameter schema includes many fields irrelevant to the stated GitHub-URL parsing purpose, creating ambiguity about which inputs are actually used.

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 schema provides descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds GitHub-specific context for the 'url' parameter, but it does not clarify why the schema contains many unrelated parameters such as 'city', 'feed', and 'host'.

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 names a specific verb ('parse'), a specific product ('owner and repo'), and a specific source ('GitHub URL'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling shape tools like jira-key-shape, figma-url-shape, and domain-shape without needing to inspect their schemas.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: use this when you have a GitHub URL and need to extract the owner and repository. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternative to choose for related URL tasks.

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