checkRepo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides none. 'Checks' could imply read-only verification, but this isn't stated. There's no information about authentication requirements (though user/password parameters suggest possible auth needs), rate limits, side effects, error conditions, or what constitutes a successful 'check'. The description fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the minimal verb.

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 maximally concise at just three words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, within the scoring framework for this dimension, it earns full points for having zero wasted words and being front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, even if more words would be beneficial.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'checking' entails, what the tool returns, what authentication scenarios require the optional parameters, or how this differs from other Git operations. Given the complexity implied by authentication parameters and the lack of structured documentation elsewhere, 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters (repo, user, password) with basic descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - no explanation of what format 'repo' should be in (URL, path, name), when authentication is needed, or how credentials are used. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the documentation work.

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'. While it indicates the tool involves Git repositories, it doesn't specify what 'checks' means - whether it validates repository health, verifies connectivity, examines contents, or performs some other operation. This vague purpose doesn't distinguish it from sibling Git tools like gitRepos, gitPullRepo, or gitCreateRepo.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple Git-related sibling tools (gitRepos, gitPullRepo, gitCreateRepo, gitUnlinkRepo, pushRepo, stageRepo, switchRepoBranch, remoteRepoInfo, gitExternalRepoInfo), but the description offers no context about what specific checking operation this performs or when it should be chosen over other repository operations.

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