Get repository health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the ~5 API request cost, which matters for rate-limit budgeting, plus the exact signals that factor into the score. It does not cover caching, failure modes, or response shape, keeping it below a 5.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the score and its range, then lists the breakdown factors, then closes with the API cost. Every clause adds information an agent would otherwise lack; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema present, the description does the work of explaining what the result contains (score plus per-signal breakdown), which is the key thing an agent needs. It omits the concrete return structure and any handling of missing signals, leaving a small gap.

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 description coverage is 100% with only owner and repo, both documented with examples, so the schema carries the parameter burden entirely. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning (e.g., owner/org edge cases), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 output (0-100 health score) for a specific resource (repository) and enumerates the signals that compose it, which makes it clearly distinct from sibling metadata readers like get_repository or compare_repositories. It never explicitly names those siblings, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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?

Purpose implies when to use it (judging whether a repo is maintained, bus factor, community files), but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance or stated exclusions such as private-repo behavior or authentication requirements. Usage must be inferred from the description of the score's components.

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