get_repo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a single catalog entry and specifies its contents (stars, language, video mentions with timestamped links and caption excerpts). This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not cover error cases or edge conditions.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, includes a concrete example, and lists the return contents. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple, has only two required parameters, and an output schema exists to describe the return shape. The description adds the key details an agent needs to call it correctly. It lacks only minor edge-case guidance (e.g., not-found behavior), which is acceptable given the simplicity.

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 must compensate. It provides an example ('coffinxp/crtmon') and the 'owner/name' format, which clarifies both parameters. However, it does not explicitly define what 'owner' and 'name' mean beyond the example, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), names the exact resource ('one repository's catalog entry'), and enumerates the returned data (stars, language, video mentions with timestamped link and caption excerpt). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like search_repos and get_catalog_status.

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 description makes clear this is for fetching a single repository by owner/name, which implies when to use it versus searching. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer the appropriate scenario.

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