get_repo_stats

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states it gets stats, with no mention of authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it works only for public repos. This leaves significant gaps.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and lists the outputs. No superfluous words.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), so a minimal description might suffice. However, it lacks details like parameter format, authentication prerequisites, and return value structure, which are important for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% parameter description coverage. The description mentions 'repo' but does not specify the required format (e.g., 'owner/repo'), leaving ambiguity. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter name.

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 states it retrieves stars, forks, watchers, and open issues for a repo, which is clear. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, the different resource type (repo vs. articles, profile) makes the purpose clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, but the use case (getting repository stats) is implied by the purpose. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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