Inspect Repository

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint:true, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns up to 200 representative file paths and explains that includeScripts:true yields full script bodies instead of names. These specifics go beyond the annotation and help the agent predict output shape and parameter effects.

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 two sentences with zero redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds a key output limit and the conditional includeScripts behavior. Every sentence 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?

For a simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose, key output characteristics (up to 200 paths), and a notable behavioral switch. It lacks details on return structure (e.g., exact schema of metadata), but that is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema—it mentions includeScripts behavior, but that is already captured in the schema. No additional parameter context is provided, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Inspect' with a clear resource 'repository' and enumerates concrete aspects: shape, languages, package managers, script names, entrypoints, and git metadata. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like repo_map (mapping) and repo_search (searching) by specifying the inspection scope.

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 by naming the tool's function, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like repo_map or repo_index. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer from the name and sibling context.

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