get_license

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output value and does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, rate-limited, error-prone, or what input format is expected, which is a significant gap for safe invocation.

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 extremely brief (five words), but this brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness. It reads as a truncated label rather than a well-formed sentence, offering minimal useful information.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description is the sole source of context. It fails to describe the return format, potential errors, or the input parameter, making it incomplete for even a simple 1-parameter tool.

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 input schema has one required parameter, owner_repo, with 0% description coverage. The description does not elaborate on the expected format (e.g., 'owner/repo' syntax) and adds no value beyond the parameter name itself.

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 'License name for the repo.' is a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase, but it does identify the tool's output (license name) and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other repo attributes. It lacks a strong verb like 'retrieves' or 'gets', which would more clearly state the action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_repo_info or get_topics. The description does not mention any use case, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent without decision support.

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