get_repository

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 states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format details. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'repo_slug' by explaining it's a 'Repository slug' and providing an example ('anzsic_classifier'). With schema description coverage at 0%, this compensates well by clarifying what the parameter represents, though it doesn't detail constraints like format or length.

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: 'Get information about a Bitbucket repository.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('Bitbucket repository'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project' or 'list_repositories', which would require a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_repository' over 'list_repositories' for a single repo, or 'get_project' for project-level info. Without such context, the agent lacks clear usage instructions.

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