github.get_repo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It enumerates the returned metadata fields, giving useful insight into the output scope. However, it omits details on authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior (e.g., repository not found).

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, concise sentence with a colon-separated list. It is front-loaded with the action and includes concrete details without any fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple read operation with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks usage guidance and parameter clarity, but the output schema likely covers return details. The description could be improved by adding when-to-use context and clarifying parameter formats.

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 does not explain the parameters (owner, repo), leaving ambiguity about expected formats (e.g., whether owner is a username or organization). The parameter names are self-evident, but no additional semantics are provided.

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 repository metadata' and lists specific metadata fields (description, language, stars, default branch, archived status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pr (pull request metadata) and list_repos (multiple repositories).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer get_repo over list_repos or get_pr, nor does it provide exclusions or use-case context.

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