discover_repos

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 only states what the tool does ('Discover skill repositories from GitHub') without mentioning any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, if it triggers background processes, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the discovery entails. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action and source.

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 the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and no annotations, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks details on what 'discover' means operationally (e.g., search, scan, list) and how it relates to siblings, which could be important for an agent to use it correctly. The output schema helps, but the description could provide more context.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed in the description. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 the tool's purpose ('Discover skill repositories from GitHub'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the action ('Discover') and source ('from GitHub'), but doesn't clarify what 'skill repositories' are or how this differs from sibling tools like 'list_tracked_repos' or 'poll_repos_now'. This makes it minimally adequate but lacking specificity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_tracked_repos' and 'poll_repos_now', the description doesn't indicate whether this is for initial discovery, ongoing monitoring, or other contexts. This leaves the agent without explicit or implied usage instructions.

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