checkRepo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: it reports what would change and whether local changes block the pull. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether it performs a fetch, how it handles authentication, or what the output format looks like. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It states the action, the resource, and the two key outputs (what would change, local obstacles) in a compact form.

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 read-only check tool with annotations covering safety and a 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and what it reports. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the output structure, but since there is no output schema and the tool is a check/preview, the description's summary of outputs ('what would change' and 'whether anything local stands in the way') is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (repo, user, password). The description doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but it does imply that repo is the target and user/password are likely for authentication. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: checking an abapGit repository before pulling, specifically what would change and whether local changes stand in the way. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('abapGit repository'), and the pre-pull context distinguishes it from generic repository tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like gitPullRepo or stageRepo, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 a clear usage context: use this before pulling to preview changes and detect local obstacles. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the pre-pull framing and the mention of 'what would change' and 'local stands in the way' give an agent enough context to select it over gitPullRepo or gitRepos. The lack of explicit exclusions or alternative names keeps it from a 5.

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