brand_repo_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (last sync time, commit SHA, etc.), implying a read-only check. Lacks explicit mention of side effects but is truthful and sufficient.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and output, second provides usage cues. No wasted words; front-loaded with essential information.

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?

No output schema, but description lists output elements. With simple parameters and no annotations, it covers the key aspects. Could mention return format but adequate for a status check tool.

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 both parameters described. Description adds no additional value beyond the schema (e.g., does not elaborate on brand_slug meaning or brandcode_url default). 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 clearly states it checks health and sync status of a git-connected brand repo, listing specific data shown (last sync time, commit SHA, polling health, recent sync events). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like brand_status or brand_brandcode_status.

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?

Provides explicit use-case phrases (e.g., 'repo status', 'is my repo syncing?') to guide invocation. However, does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives, though sibling context makes it clear.

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