repo_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: retention is limited to current and previous code, handles expire and require a fresh analysis, and the handle must not appear in the answer. That lifecycle detail goes well beyond the annotations.

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?

Short, front-loaded, and every sentence carries information about the snapshot/handle lifecycle. The phrasing is terse to the point of being cryptic in places ("do not include it in the answer"), but there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and the description covers the tricky part (snapshot selection, handle reuse, expiry). Missing only pagination behavior for limit/offset and any hint of result size, which is minor given the output schema.

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 carries the burden, and it does explain the snapshot parameter's three modes and the handle contract thoroughly. But limit, offset, and project_id receive no explanation at all, leaving pagination semantics undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("List code files"), so an agent knows the basic operation. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like read_file or search_code, and the name "repo_overview" suggests something broader than a file listing, leaving a small ambiguity about scope.

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?

It gives concrete guidance on the snapshot argument (omit for current code, use 'previous', or reuse a handle) and on passing handles to follow-up reads, which implies a workflow. But it never says when to choose this tool over read_file, search_code, or get_diff, so sibling selection is left to inference.

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