buscar_repositorio_github

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does little beyond noting the README is included in the result. It says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens for nonexistent/private repositories.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs verb, resource, identification key, and the notable README inclusion with zero 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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: purpose and README inclusion are covered, but error behavior and the distinction from the sibling listing tool are left unstated.

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 both parameters (usuario optional with default, repositorio required) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, syntax, or defaulting detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Busca') plus resource ('detalhes de um repositório específico do GitHub') and adds scope ('por nome, incluindo README'). The word 'específico' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling listar_repositorios_github, though it never names that alternative outright.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for fetching one repo's details rather than listing them. There is no explicit when-to-use clause, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling listar_repositorios_github as the alternative.

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