read_repertoire

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds a key behavioral trait: 'At every position, the FIRST variation listed is the move En Croissant drills; later variations are recorded alternatives.' This goes beyond the simple 'read' semantics and helps the agent understand the output ordering. It also lists what the tree contains (main line, orientation, size), providing valuable context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence adds important behavioral detail without unnecessary expansion. Every word earns its place—no fluff, repetition, or ambiguity. This is a model of conciseness.

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?

The tool has one parameter, an output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the purpose and a key behavioral detail. The output schema likely explains return structure, so the description doesn't need to. It's reasonably complete for a read-only, single-parameter tool, though it could mention prerequisites like existence of the repertoire, but that's a minor 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?

The input schema has only one parameter 'name' with no description. The tool description references 'one repertoire,' which implicitly clarifies that 'name' identifies the repertoire. Although it doesn't explicitly state this, for a single obvious parameter, the description compensates enough. The schema coverage is 0% by strict measure, but the parameter is simple and the context is sufficient.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Read one repertoire's tree: its main line, orientation, and size.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_repertoires (which lists all repertoires) and add_line_to_repertoire (which modifies). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage when you need the tree of a specific repertoire, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. For instance, it doesn't say 'use this instead of list_repertoires when you need details of one repertoire.' The context is clear but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, so it earns an average score.

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