check_my_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 the key behavioral trait: it performs a bulk scan of the repo, looking up verdicts from AgentScore, and produces a summary for CI gating. It does not explicitly mention side effects (likely none), but the behavior is clearly described.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the essential action, followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and when to use it. No output schema means the description does not need to explain return values, but it could hint at the output format (e.g., a report). Still, it's complete enough for its complexity level.

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 100% (the single parameter 'path' is described). The description adds no additional detail beyond the schema's description, so a 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: inspect a repo for MCP dependencies, look up AgentScore verdicts, and summarise what should be gated in CI. It uses specific verbs ('inspect', 'look up', 'summarise') and a clear resource ('the current repo'). It also differentiates from scanning one package at a time.

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 explains when to use this tool ('when a developer wants to understand all MCP packages in a repo instead of scanning one package at a time'), which provides context compared to alternatives like scan_package. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list specific alternatives.

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