github_get_clone_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavior about the protocol parameter ('empty = use session default') and lists the arguments, but it does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or the fact that this is a read-only safe operation. It covers some behavioral details but leaves out several.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with a one-sentence purpose, then uses an Args list to document parameters. Every line provides value without fluff or redundancy.

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 simplicity of this getter tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it retrieves, the format options, and parameter roles. It could enhance completeness by noting that a session must be connected, but overall it is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: owner, repo, protocol, and session_name. It adds meaningful clarity for protocol ('ssh' or 'https' plus default behavior) and session_name ('GitHub session to use'), which is not present in the schema. Though brief, it covers all parameters.

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 'Get the clone URL for a repository in SSH or HTTPS format.' This is a specific verb+resource+format, uniquely distinguishing it from sibling tools like github_get_repo or github_get_file. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 usage is implied by the tool's purpose (retrieving clone URLs), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, no prerequisites like requiring an authenticated session, and no exclusions. It does not mention that a connection/session must be established first, which would be useful context.

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