snapshot_repo_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('获取快照仓库信息') without describing the response format, whether it returns a single repository or multiple, error conditions, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another explaining the parameter. It's front-loaded with the main function. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter explanation more seamlessly.

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?

Given the complexity (a read operation with a parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., repository details, status, settings), how results are formatted, or error handling. For a tool in a rich ecosystem with many siblings, this leaves too much unspecified.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'name', explaining it's optional and supports wildcards. With 0% schema description coverage (the schema only provides a title and type), this compensates well by clarifying usage. However, it doesn't detail the format of the name or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 '获取快照仓库信息' (Get snapshot repository information), which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'snapshot_repo_create', 'snapshot_repo_delete', or 'cat_repositories', leaving the specific scope and differentiation unclear. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what kind of repository information is retrieved.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'cat_repositories' (which might list repositories) or 'snapshot_repo_verify' (which might verify repository status), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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