Get a repository

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds a crucial non-obvious behavior: disabled units cause their whole endpoint family to 404 rather than return empty. That directly explains why this tool is the right place to diagnose apparent missing repositories.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loads the purpose and return contents, then adds the diagnostic rationale. Every clause earns its place with no boilerplate.

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, the description still names the important returned fields (default branch, size in KiB, unit toggles) and explains the key 404 behavior. For a two-parameter read-only lookup tool, this is complete enough for correct selection and invocation.

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 both owner and repo are documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the '(owner/repo)' format, so it adds minimal meaning beyond the already-complete schema, matching the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get one repository's details (owner/repo)' and enumerates exactly what is returned, including default branch, size, and unit toggles. This clearly distinguishes fetching a single repository from sibling list/search tools such as list_my_repos and search_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?

It gives a clear diagnostic use case: check this tool when a release or workflow tool reports a repository as missing because a unit is off. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_my_repos or search_repos, so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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