get_repo_info

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

The description discloses the read-only nature by saying 'Get' and previews the kind of data returned (metadata fields). Since no annotations are provided, it carries the transparency burden and fulfills it adequately, though it doesn't discuss error handling or rate limits.

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, concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is meaningful.

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, the description is sufficiently complete, offering the purpose and parameter format. It could include return details but the examples and simple nature make it adequate.

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 already fully documents the 'repo' parameter with 100% coverage, including format ('owner/repo'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses the verb 'Get' with the resource 'repository metadata' and lists concrete examples (description, language, stars, default branch), making it specific and distinguishing it from siblings like list_files or get_commits.

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 (retrieving repository-level metadata) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools or mention exclusions. No alternatives are named.

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