arvan_git_clone

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

Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: default destination is a temp directory, returns the path, and path persists for the session. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. First sentence states action and default, second explains return value and use case. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects of a clone operation: what it does, output (path), and persistence. No output schema exists, but the return value is described. Minor omissions like error handling or authentication are acceptable for a simple tool.

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 compensate. It explains the dest parameter (default to temp dir) but does not address repo_url, branch, or depth. This leaves half the parameters undocumented beyond their names. Adequate but not thorough.

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 explicitly states 'Clone a repository' with verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling git tools (like checkout, diff) by focusing on cloning and mentioning its use case for IaC/K8s tools. No other clone tool exists among siblings.

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 context: 'Returns the checkout path so you can pass it as directory to the IaC or Kubernetes tools.' It implies use when you need a cloned repo path for subsequent tools, but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or list alternatives. Clear enough for most agents.

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