owp_analyze_repo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the cloning behavior (clone to temp directory) and that analysis includes file entries and dependencies, but it omits potential side effects like network usage or cleanup of temporary directories. It's adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise and well-structured, using Args and Returns sections for clarity. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter and return details are presented efficiently.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: clear purpose, parameter semantics, behavioral details, and return value overview. It covers all necessary aspects for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters, and it does thoroughly. 'source' is described as a local path or remote Git URL, and 'clone_enabled' explains its default and behavior conditionally. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 ('Analyse') and resource ('repository's structure'), listing concrete output aspects (file count, languages, dependencies). This distinguishes it from siblings like owp_repo_read, which likely focuses on file contents, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: whenever repository structure analysis is needed. It also explains the clone_enabled parameter behavior, indicating remote vs local usage. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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