get_sc_repo

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

The annotations indicate readOnlyHint: true, which matches the 'Get details' description. However, the description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., authentication requirements, data freshness, or error scenarios). The annotation already covers the safety profile, so a baseline score is appropriate.

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 no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and effectively communicates the tool's function without extra detail.

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 simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, readOnlyHint, and an output schema), the minimal description is adequate. However, it could briefly mention that the tool returns full details of the specified repository, which would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema already documents 'repo_name' with a clear description ('Repository name.'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so a score of 3 is justified.

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 details for a specific repository,' which identifies the action (get) and resource (repository). While it distinguishes from list_sc_repos implicitly, it does not explicitly differentiate from other repository-related tools like update_sc_repo or delete_sc_repo, which is acceptable given the context.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The agent must infer that this tool is for fetching details of a single repository, but there is no explicit mention of use cases or exclusions, such as to not use it for listing or modifying.

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