repo_get_repo_by_name_or_id

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. It states 'Get' (implying a read operation) but doesn't clarify if this requires specific permissions, what happens if the repository doesn't exist, or the format of the returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and parameters, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence contributes to clarity.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, or output format. For a simple read tool, this might suffice, but it doesn't provide a complete picture for effective agent use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('project' and 'repositoryNameOrId'). The description mentions these parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Get the repository by project and repository name or ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('repository'), and mentions the key parameters (project and repository name/ID). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'repo_list_repos_by_project' or 'repo_get_branch_by_name', which would require a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'repo_list_repos_by_project' for listing repositories or 'repo_get_branch_by_name' for branch-specific operations. There's no context on prerequisites, such as needing project access, or when this tool is preferred over others.

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