get_repository_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only retrieval operation, and the enumerated return facets (details, statistics, stars, forks, settings) tell the agent what to expect. It does not discuss authentication or error behavior, but these are not critical for a straightforward metadata read.

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 filler. The core action and the main data categories are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's purpose.

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 two simple parameters, a fully documented schema, and a clear list of returned data facets, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Lacking an output schema or error-handling notes is acceptable for this straightforward read operation.

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage: 'repo' is described as 'Repository name' and 'owner' as 'GitHub user or organization name (optional if GITHUB_OWNER is set)'. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema fully documents both parameters.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource ('specific GitHub repository'), and the scope of data (details, statistics, stars, forks, settings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list branches, files, trees, or search repositories.

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 phrase 'for a specific GitHub repository' provides clear context for when to use this tool versus discovery, listing, or content-level tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the targeting is unambiguous.

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