resolve_repo

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden — and it carries it thoroughly: remote read order, return of all discovered remotes, userinfo stripping to prevent credential leaks, path defaulting to current directory, and error when no parseable remote is found. This covers ordering, security, defaults, and failure modes far beyond a typical description.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with core purpose before behavioral and usage details. Every clause earns its place: precedence, security sanitization, default, session guidance, and error behavior — no redundancy or 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?

For a single-optional-parameter tool, the description covers what it returns, the parsed triple (baseUrl/owner/repo), defaults, and error behavior. The only gap is the return-shape ambiguity: it says 'Detect baseUrl/owner/repo' but 'all discovered remotes are returned', so an agent can't tell whether output is a single parsed triple or a list of remotes — a responsibility the description carries given no 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents path as 'Path to the git repository (defaults to current directory)', establishing the baseline 3. The description's mention that 'path defaults to the current directory' reinforces the schema without adding material new semantics such as validation rules or accepted forms. No additional parameter insight is provided beyond restating the default.

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 ('Detect') and resource (baseUrl/owner/repo from git remotes, SSH or HTTPS). No sibling tool performs repository resolution — all siblings are Gitea CRUD operations — so it stands clearly apart, and the description further names the exact precedence (upstream → origin → other) that defines its behavior.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to call: 'Call ONCE at the start of a session to establish owner/repo for later calls instead of guessing.' This is clear context with the negative case stated, though it doesn't name specific sibling alternatives. The omission is minor since no sibling overlaps with this tool's function.

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