github_get_repo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the content scope ('basic info, including default branch'), but says nothing about behavior on missing/inaccessible repos, rate limits, or auth requirements.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. Everything in it contributes to identifying the tool's output.

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?

A simple read-only tool with a fully documented single parameter, annotations, and an output schema, so little needs to be explained. The only gap is that 'basic info' is not enumerated (name, description, stars, visibility), leaving the exact field set to the 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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'repo' parameter is fully documented in-schema, including the owner/name format and the GITHUB_MCP_DEFAULT_REPO fallback. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 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 verb and resource ('Get a repository's basic info') and adds a concrete content hint ('including its default branch'), so an agent knows this returns repo metadata rather than file or branch data. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like github_list_branches, which also surface default branch info.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (auth, repo access), and no exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the generic 'basic info' phrasing.

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