github_licenses_get_for_repo

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, required permissions, or side effects. The phrase 'Get' implies idempotency but no explicit behavioral traits are stated.

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, concise sentence with no extraneous words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently and is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about the return format or expected behavior. It does not explain what data the tool returns (e.g., license metadata, file content). This is inadequate for a tool with simple input but no output schema.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains the parameters (owner, repo, ref). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The ref parameter's description is detailed, but the overall parameter semantics are adequately covered by the schema alone.

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 'Get the license for a repository' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like github_licenses_get (which gets a specific license by SPDX key) and github_licenses_get_all_commonly_used (which lists common licenses), though it could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., repository-level license).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the action without context on prerequisites or exclusions. The agent cannot determine when to use this over other license-related tools.

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