get_repo_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It merely states 'gets detailed information' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, or what 'detailed' entails. For a read-only operation, it lacks detail on the scope of information returned.

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 sentence, which is efficient and front-loaded. It contains no fluff. However, it could be slightly more descriptive without losing conciseness.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain what 'detailed information' includes, leaving the agent to guess the return format. The context is incomplete for a tool that likely returns multiple fields.

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 coverage is 100% with a description of the only parameter (repo_name). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 the tool gets detailed information of a specific repository. It uses a specific verb ('obtiene') and resource ('información detallada de un repositorio'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_repos (which lists all repos) and other get_*_info tools. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it requires a repo name 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 vs alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites. Sibling tools include list_repos for listing all repos, and get_*_info for other resources, but no comparisons are made.

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