github_repo

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only lists return values but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or side effects. The fetch operation is implied read-only but not stated.

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 with three lines, front-loads the purpose, and includes useful examples. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 adequately covers the tool's purpose and returns, but missing parameter details (especially 'include_commits') and behavioral context limit completeness. An output schema exists, which reduces need for return value explanation, but gaps remain.

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 0% and the description does not add explicit parameter semantics. Examples hint at repo format (owner/name or URL) but do not formally explain. The 'include_commits' parameter is not described.

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 the action ('Fetch GitHub repository information and health metrics') and lists the specific data returned (stars, forks, issues, etc.). It clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose among siblings like package_info or web_search.

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 a clear use case ('Use this to evaluate open source projects before using them'), which implies context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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