scm_repositories_get_instance

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, and it discloses nothing: no auth requirements, no note that this is a read-only fetch, no indication of what is returned or whether missing ids error. A raw endpoint string is not behavioral 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 text is short but not concise in the useful sense: the same endpoint string is repeated verbatim in parentheses, adding zero information. This is under-specification, not economical phrasing.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters including relationship/field-expansion options, the description is completely inadequate. An agent gets no help understanding what the endpoint returns or how to shape the request.

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% and each parameter (id, include, fields_*) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond the path template, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 is just the raw HTTP endpoint 'GET /v1/scmRepositories/{id}' duplicated in parentheses. It does convey a verb (GET) and a resource path, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name rather than an explanation of what the tool returns or how it differs from siblings like scm_repositories_get_collection or scm_git_references_get_instance.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the collection endpoint, the git references endpoint, or other SCM reads. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and path.

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