createRepo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that credentials are auto-loaded from .nostr-keys.json and that the tool performs both file pushing and Nostr publishing. However, it omits return value behavior, error handling, and idempotency details.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary action and benefit. The phrase 'Best for agents!' is slightly promotional but does not detract significantly. Each clause contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters) and lack of output schema, the description gives a clear high-level overview but does not explain what the tool returns or how it handles potential failures. It relies on schema descriptions for parameter details, which is acceptable but leaves gaps for an agent.

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 schema already covers most parameters with descriptions (90% coverage). The description adds minimal parameter-specific insight beyond noting auto-loading of credentials, which relates to the privkey parameter. It does not compensate for the small coverage gap or explain parameter interactions.

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 uses a specific verb 'CREATE A REPO' and clearly states the scope: pushing files and publishing to Nostr. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like createIssue or pushToBridge by combining operations into one call.

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 implies the primary use case: creating a repo with files in one call, and notes it's 'Best for agents!' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context of a one-call combined operation is clear.

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