repo_stats

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. It only lists output fields, omitting context like 'returns aggregated data' or 'does not include commit history.'

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 that conveys the essential purpose without extraneous words. It is front-loaded and 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?

Given the simple tool (2 parameters, basic output) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on usage scope (e.g., any repository? GitHub?) and does not mention the optional owner parameter's default behavior.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond their names. While 'repo' and 'owner' are somewhat self-explanatory, the tool description fails to clarify their precise meaning (e.g., owner defaults to empty, repo is required) or add value beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('repository stats'), listing concrete attributes (languages, size, open issues, forks, creation date). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_commits, list_issues, etc., which target different aspects of a repository.

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 usage when repository summary statistics are needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as distinguishing it from list_repos (which lists all repos) or search_code (which searches within). No 'when not to use' or prerequisites are mentioned.

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