fetch_repo_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose what the tool fetches and that output is a RepoInfo object. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral details like API rate-limiting implications, network dependency/failure modes, or how much data it returns. For a network-fetching tool with zero annotation coverage, more disclosure about potential failure or cost would be valuable.

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?

Well-structured and compact. The description uses a clear header ('什么时候该调用') to separate the what from the when. Every sentence earns its place: the first sentence lists the fetched data, the section explains invocation timing and output flow. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool has an output schema (RepoInfo), which reduces the need to explain return values. With only 2 parameters and a clear downstream consumer (analyze_repo_for_resume) plus conditional github_username behavior, the description covers the essential use cases well. Minor gap: doesn't mention failure handling when the repo doesn't exist or is private, but this is acceptable given the output schema and clear purpose.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains github_username's purpose ('以便 contributor_stats 直接带上该用户的占比' - so contributor_stats can directly include that user's percentage), adding meaning the bare 'Github Username' schema title lacks. repo_url is implicitly clear given the description's framing. However, it doesn't enumerate that repo_url could also accept owner/repo shorthand in the parameter details, though the usage section mentions this.

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 names a specific verb+resource set ('抓取仓库元数据、README、语言占比、近期 commit、依赖文件与贡献者统计' - fetch repo metadata, README, language stats, recent commits, dependency files, and contributor stats). It clearly distinguishes what data is gathered but doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings; however, the sibling tools (parse_resume, analyze_repo_for_resume, generate_bullet_points) are clearly downstream resume-processing steps, so the data-fetching purpose is well differentiated in context.

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 '什么时候该调用' section explicitly states when to use it: after the user provides a GitHub repo URL (or owner/repo). It also states the output feeds into analyze_repo_for_resume, providing clear downstream context. It even gives conditional guidance on passing github_username for contributor_stats. This is explicit when-to-use guidance with integration context.

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