resolveRepoByNostrId

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

The description discloses return value details (prefer git.gittr.space, multiple cloneUrls, relays for location-agnostic use) but carries the full burden since no annotations are provided. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires credentials, or behaves on failure, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every phrase contributes (identity, repo name, return values, location-agnostic rationale). There is no fluff or redundant information.

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 simple lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and return shape. However, the unexplained 'relays' input parameter and the potential confusion with output relays introduce a clear gap, making it less than fully complete.

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 67%, and the description adds little beyond the schema for ownerNpubOrHex and repoId. The 'relays' input parameter is entirely unexplained, and the description's mention of 'relays' in the output creates ambiguity about whether it is an input or output field. The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter description.

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 a specific action ('Resolve repo by Nostr identity (npub or hex) and repo name') and identifies the resource (repo) and distinguishing input type (Nostr identity). It also specifies the output (cloneUrl, cloneUrls, relays), making it unambiguous and distinct from siblings like listRepos or searchRepos, which focus on listings or queries.

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 use case: when you have a Nostr identity (npub or hex) and a repository name, this tool resolves the repository's clone URLs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to select this tool.

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