checkRepo

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. 'Checks' is vague and doesn't reveal whether this is a read-only operation, what it returns, whether it requires authentication (though parameters suggest optional credentials), or any side effects. For a tool with 3 parameters including sensitive ones like password, this lack of behavioral context is inadequate.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Checks') and resource ('a Git repository'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word serves a minimal but clear purpose, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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 (3 parameters including sensitive authentication data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'checking' entails, what the return value might be, how authentication parameters interact, or any error conditions. For a tool that could involve network operations and credential handling, this minimal description fails to provide necessary context.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (repo, user, password) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, relationships, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Checks a Git repository' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'checkRepo'. It doesn't specify what 'checks' means operationally (e.g., validates existence, verifies connectivity, examines status) or what resource is being checked beyond the generic 'Git repository'. While it mentions the type of resource, it lacks the specific verb clarity needed for an AI agent to understand the exact operation.

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. There are multiple Git-related sibling tools (gitCreateRepo, gitPullRepo, gitRepos, gitUnlinkRepo, pushRepo, remoteRepoInfo, stageRepo, switchRepoBranch), but the description doesn't indicate how 'checkRepo' differs from these or in what context it should be selected. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative information is provided.

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