opengit-mcp

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the payload contents (description, interfaces, stars, OG score, links), which is useful. It says nothing about failure behavior for unknown repos, rate limits, or whether the call is read-only, leaving real 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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is terse to the point of omitting needed detail, but the length itself is appropriate.

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 2-parameter lookup with no output schema, listing the returned fields is genuinely helpful and largely sufficient. Missing the meaning/format of the two required identifiers is the notable remaining hole.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does not: 'owner' and 'name' are never mentioned, and the owner/name split (user vs org, and whether name includes the owner prefix) is left ambiguous. A concrete example like owner='facebook', name='react' would have closed the gap.

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 operation (fetch details) on a specific resource (a single repo) and enumerates the fields returned, which separates it from search_repos and trending in practice. It does not explicitly name a sibling as the alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 use this instead of search_repos or trending, and no prerequisites (e.g., the repo must already exist / be known). Usage is only inferable from the singular 'one repo'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden: it doesn't say whether the call is read-only, whether the list is paginated, whether it requires authentication, or how large the result typically is. Its only behavioral disclosure is the return payload ('categories ... with repo counts'), which is useful but thin.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is arguably too short rather than too long, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

This is a simple zero-param read with no output schema, so the description should at least clarify the return shape. It does so minimally ('categories ... with repo counts') but says nothing about ordering, completeness, or what a 'category' is — enough to call correctly, not enough to use the output confidently.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to document; per the baseline for zero-param tools this lands at 4. No misleading parameter references appear in the 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 names the resource (categories in the OpenGit index) and its payload (repo counts), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings like trending, search_repos, and get_repo. It lacks an explicit verb, but for a zero-parameter enumeration tool that omission is negligible.

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 tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. The description implies it's a discovery/index-enumeration call, but nothing tells the agent whether this is a first step before search_repos or get_repo.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the ranking rule ('ranked by match, then OG score'), which is real behavioral context, but 'OG score' is undefined jargon and there is no statement about result caps, empty-result behavior, or the fact that all parameters are optional (so an empty call presumably returns unfiltered results).

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return behavior, with no filler. The only cost is that the second sentence introduces an unexplained scoring term rather than earning extra clarity.

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?

No annotations and no output schema mean the description must explain behavior and returns, but it only gives a one-line ranking hint. It omits empty-query behavior, result limits/pagination, and what the returned ranking metric means — significant gaps for a 4-parameter search tool.

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 50% — `query` and `interface` are documented in-schema, while `limit` and `category` are not. The description adds nothing about parameters, notably not clarifying whether `query` is effectively required despite zero required parameters, nor how filters interact with ranking.

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 ('Find agent-ready open source repos for a task') and adds a scope qualifier ('agent-ready'). It implicitly separates itself from `trending` by framing results as task/query-driven, but never names the sibling explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this versus `trending` or `get_repo`, and no mention of how `query`, `category`, and `interface` combine or which takes precedence. The only hint is the phrase 'for a task', which leaves selection to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose the meaningful behavioral traits: the ranking metric (stars gained) and the time window (this week). It omits staleness/refresh cadence, ordering guarantees for ties, and whether the ranking is global or category-scoped.

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 sentence, zero padding, with the distinguishing concept (fastest-rising / stars gained this week) front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing signal.

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 one-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say more about what each result contains (e.g., repo name, star delta) and confirm it is a safe read. The ranking basis is covered; the return shape and default result count are not.

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 0% and the single `limit` parameter is never mentioned in the description, so no meaning is added beyond the schema. The schema does carry a default of 10 and a 1-50 range, making the parameter largely self-explanatory, which keeps this at a baseline 3 rather than lower.

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 resource (repos) and a precise ranking concept (fastest-rising by stars gained this week), which is clearly distinct from search_repos, get_repo, and list_categories. It stops short of naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the differentiation rather than being told.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the browse-what's-hot tool. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over search_repos (e.g., no query needed, discovery-oriented) and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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