repository_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does declare the tool reports existence/branch/commit/last pull/path, giving the agent a sense of its read-only nature. However, it doesn't state whether the status check performs network calls, requires auth, or what 'supported' means in terms of which repos qualify. The 'supported repositories' caveat is useful but underspecified.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then enumerates the specific data returned. Every word earns its place with zero waste 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?

This is a simple status-reporting tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description is reasonably complete for what the tool does, but given the absence of annotations and output schema, it could add more context about what 'supported' repositories means, whether interactions with repositories require local presence, or how 'last pull time' is determined. For a read-only status tool, it's adequate but has room to specify edge-case behavior.

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%, so the 'repository' parameter is already documented with a clear example ('flutter/flutter'). The description adds 'optional' context implicitly via zero required parameters. The schema handles the parameter semantics adequately, and the description adds minimal additional meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 verb 'Report' and the resource (repositories), and lists the specific data points returned: existence, branch, commit, last pull time, and path. This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like update_repositories. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools for differentiation.

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 implies this is a read/status reporting tool, which is contrasted implicitly with update_repositories among siblings. The 'supported repositories' phrasing suggests there may be an unsupported set, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like search_source or reindex.

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