ecosystem_repo_get

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 read-only nature, side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description only states what the tool does, not its behavioral profile. Since the description carries the full burden, it is insufficient.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently communicates the holistic nature of the result. However, it could be slightly more structured without becoming verbose, so it does not earn a perfect score.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values in detail. However, for a tool with 4 parameters and multiple returned components, the description is somewhat sparse. It adequately covers the basic purpose but lacks context about how the parameters influence the output or edge cases.

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?

All parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 tool retrieves a holistic detail of an ecosystem repo, listing the included components (profile, tags, deep reviews, relations, scan run). It uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'ecosystem repo', making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ecosystem_repo_events or ecosystem_repo_tags, which might share some functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when it is appropriate, or when to use other tools like ecosystem_repo_events or ecosystem_scan_status. Given the large number of sibling tools, this is a significant gap.

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