get_language_breakdown

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the output unit (percentages of bytes) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any other behavioral aspects. This is a minimal disclosure for a getter tool.

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 short noun phrase, which is concise in word count but significantly under-specified. It does not form a complete sentence and omits critical operational context, making it more of an incomplete fragment than a valuable concise description.

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 has one required parameter and no output schema, the description is not complete. It fails to explain the input parameter, the full return shape (e.g., what languages are included, if any limits exist), or any edge cases. The description only gives a hint about the output metric, which is insufficient for selecting and invoking the tool 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 0% and the description does not explain the 'owner_repo' parameter at all. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name, leaving the agent to infer that it likely is a repository identifier, but with no formatting or usage details.

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 'Language usage as percentages of bytes' is a noun phrase that vaguely indicates the tool returns language usage broken down by byte percentages. It is not a clear verb+resource statement and lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like get_repo_stats or get_topics, though the focus on language usage provides some specificity.

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, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. It does not mention that it should be used for analyzing language distribution in a repository or any similar usage context.

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