get_repo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the type of information returned (AI summary, highlights, category) but does not mention authorization needs, rate limits, or potential side effects. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 consists of two sentences: the first defines the purpose, the second provides usage guidance with an example. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It hints at return values (summary, highlights, category). However, it omits error conditions (e.g., repo not found) and does not explain the output format, which is partially mitigated by the simplicity.

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% (the slug parameter has a description in the schema). The description adds an example ('NousResearch/hermes-agent') and clarifies the format, providing value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 plus extra value gives 4.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific repo including its AI-generated summary, highlights, and category.' It also specifies the input format, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_list or search_repos which handle multiple repos.

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 an example of the expected slug format but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_repos or get_featured. It implies usage for a single specific repo but lacks context on exclusions or prerequisites.

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