repo_card

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully characterizes size ('short') and content of the return, implying a cheap overview call, but says nothing about whether the card is cached or may be stale (a refresh sibling exists), what happens for an unknown repo, or whether any permission is needed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the payload contents and ending with the actionable instruction. No waste, though the same terseness contributes to the gaps elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape needn't be spelled out, and the description gives a usable mental model of the card. However, with no annotations and an undocumented required parameter, the definition leaves just enough open to cause a wrong-format call.

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 0% and the description never mentions the single required 'repo' parameter. An agent must guess whether it expects a bare name, an org-qualified slug, or a URL; the description should have compensated for the undocumented schema and does not.

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?

It states the resource (a repo) and enumerates the card's contents – purpose, run commands, layout, relationships – so an agent knows this is an orientation/overview tool rather than a query tool. It does not explicitly name a sibling it displaces (e.g., read_org_file, org_profile), so differentiation is by implication only.

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?

'Read before exploring it' gives an explicit sequencing rule: this is the first call against a repo, before any deeper exploration. There is no statement of when not to use it and no named alternative among resolve_repo, org_profile, or read_org_file, which 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.