inspect_repository

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered structurally. The description still adds real context beyond that: 'nothing is executed' reassures for a static inspection tool, and the note that relative paths resolve against the first approved root discloses path-resolution behavior not in the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then a compact enumeration of outputs, then the read-only note, then the arg. Every sentence earns its place; the only minor redundancy is that 'Read-only' restates readOnlyHint=true, though 'nothing is executed' extends it usefully.

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?

With an output schema present, the description is not obligated to detail return values, yet it summarizes them helpfully. For a one-parameter, read-only, non-nested tool this is close to complete; only the explicit relationship to the sibling tools is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the single 'path' parameter, and it does: 'Repository directory' plus the relative-path resolution rule against the first approved root. That resolution rule is genuine added meaning well beyond the bare string type, though the absolute-vs-relative constraint could be stated more sharply.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Give a first overview of a repository') and enumerates the returned artifacts (layout, README/CONTRIBUTING/manifests/CI, language counts, project type). This distinguishes it from the 'find_relevant_code' sibling by framing it as orientation rather than search, though it never names the siblings explicitly.

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?

'Give a first overview' implies the reconnaissance context in which to reach for this tool, which is the right usage signal. However there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of how it relates to get_setup_guide or find_relevant_code, so the agent must infer the routing.

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