get_star

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Get') and that it returns 'full details', but it doesn't explain what happens if a repo isn't found, whether authentication is required, or the exact response structure. This is a basic getter, so transparency is acceptable but thin.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb 'Get' and includes the key qualifier 'by its full name'. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool does and how to provide the argument. 'Full details' hints at the response, but it doesn't specify the response shape or error conditions. Still, for a simple read operation, this is nearly complete.

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%: the schema already documents full_name with an example ('facebook/react'). The description adds 'owner/repo' which essentially repeats the schema example. It does not introduce new meaning like validation rules or special formats beyond what the schema provides.

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's function: 'Get full details for one starred repo by its full name (owner/repo).' It specifies the action (get), resource (starred repo), and the identifier format (owner/repo). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_stars or search_stars, which operate over multiple repos.

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 context: use this when you need details for a single known repo, identified by full_name. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'one' and 'by its full name' phrasing provides clear context for when it applies.

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