get_network_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the output content (forks with owner and star counts) and does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, how limit affects results, or any potential errors or pagination behavior.

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, succinct sentence that front-loads the verb and key output fields. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, this minimal description is insufficient for an agent to reliably select and invoke the tool. It does not explain input formatting, limit semantics, or the overall output structure beyond listing forks.

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' or 'limit' parameters. The agent cannot infer the required format of owner_repo (e.g., 'owner/repo') or how limit controls the number of forks returned. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's bare parameter names.

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 that the tool lists forks with owner and star counts, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_contributors or get_repo_info, though it does not explicitly mention 'for a given repository'—this is implied by the required owner_repo parameter.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or contrasting with sibling tools such as get_repo_stats or list_pull_requests. The description simply states the function without contextual usage advice.

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