panelica_git_get_v1_git_repositories_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Required scopes: git:read' and 'Read-only,' providing useful authentication and safety context beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core action 'Get repository.' It contains no filler, though 'Read-only' and 'Category: Git' partly duplicate information already available in annotations and the tool name.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read-only tool, and the annotations plus schema provide strong context. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what repository data is returned, leaving the agent to infer the response format entirely from the resource name.

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 the single 'id' parameter described as 'Path parameter: id.' The description adds no extra information about the parameter, so the schema carries the full semantic burden. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Get repository' and includes the HTTP path 'GET /v1/git/repositories/:id', making it clear that this fetches a single repository by ID. It is unambiguous about the resource, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like repository stats, branches, or pipelines.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this tool is for retrieving a single Git repository by ID. The description provides category and scope information but no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives, and does not explain when this should be chosen over related repository subresource tools.

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