getRepo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It only states the retrieval action and identification methods, without disclosing error behavior (e.g., what happens if the repo is not found), authentication needs, relay usage (despite the 'relays' parameter), or return format. This leaves significant behavioral details uncovered for a simple getter.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant details. It communicates the core purpose efficiently and earns its place without waste.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (a single repo getter), but with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It does not mention return values, error handling, or the purpose of the 'relays' parameter, making it adequate but with clear gaps. A bit more detail on expected outcomes 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 schema already covers 67% of parameters (repoId and ownerPubkey) with descriptions. The description adds the concept of 'owner+name' as an alternative to ID, which aligns with the schema but does not explain the 'relays' parameter. This provides marginal value beyond the schema, but the gap on relays prevents a higher score.

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 ('Get'), a clear resource ('a single repository'), and explicitly states the two identification methods (by ID or owner+name). This immediately distinguishes it from siblings like listRepos (multiple repos) and searchRepos (search behavior), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need one repository and you have its ID or owner+name. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the phrasing 'a single repository' naturally contrasts with listing/searching tools, giving implicit guidance.

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