Get HACS repository details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description goes further by naming the underlying `hacs/repository/info` WebSocket command and its `repository_id` field, and by specifying the exact error payload shape and its hint about HACS not being installed or the WS command name changing. That failure-mode disclosure is genuine added value beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose, then labeled Use/Not for/Returns/Errors blocks. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padded.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers invocation mechanics, the alternative tool, the raw return shape, and the failure payload. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds the non-obvious mapping that repo_id is sent as the `repository_id` field of the WebSocket command, which the schema does not convey. It also points to hacs_list_hacs_repositories as the source of valid ids.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get details about a single HACS repository') and immediately scopes it to one repository, which cleanly separates it from hacs_list_hacs_repositories. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' clause names the scenario (checking installed/available version or metadata before install/update) and an explicit 'Not for' clause routes bulk browsing to the named sibling hacs_list_hacs_repositories. Both when-to-use and the alternative are spelled out.

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