repository_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It declares the tool as read-only via '[READ]' and mentions conditional inclusion of capacity data. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like side effects, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 with a front-loaded purpose indicator '[READ]', followed by a clear summary and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions capacity/free/used but does not detail other return fields. For a simple retrieval tool, it is adequate but could provide more information about the response format.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema: it explains repository_id as 'Veeam repository id (see repository_list)' and target as 'Veeam target name from config.' With 0% schema description coverage, this context is valuable.

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 starts with '[READ]' and states 'Detail for one repository incl. capacity/free/used when known,' clearly specifying the action and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like repository_list (list all) and repository_state (state).

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 references repository_list for getting repository_id and explains parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied but not explicitly guided.

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