remoteRepoInfo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that credentials are used for reading, which is useful context, but it does not disclose details like whether the operation requires network access, what happens on invalid credentials, or the exact structure of the returned branches/heads. With annotations covering the read-only nature, 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key scoping detail (credentials). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states what is read and with what credentials. However, it doesn't clarify the return format or how the branches/heads are structured, and it doesn't explicitly differentiate from gitExternalRepoInfo, which could be a close sibling. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not rich.

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 adds that credentials are passed in, which aligns with the user/password parameters, but it doesn't add deeper meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a specific verb ('read') and resource ('remote abapGit repository'), and clarifies what is returned: branches and their heads. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gitRepos and gitExternalRepoInfo by focusing on remote repository info, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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: it is for reading remote abapGit repository information with provided credentials. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gitExternalRepoInfo or gitRepos, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond credentials.

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