clone_repository

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the default protocol (SSH) but does not disclose side effects such as creating a local directory, authentication requirements, or behavior if the target directory already exists. This is minimal behavioral transparency for a mutating operation.

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, focused sentence that wastes no words. It front-loads the core action and adds the most relevant variant (protocol choice). It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters. The description does not explain return values, error cases, prerequisites like authentication, or limitations. While the schema covers parameter semantics, the overall behavioral context is thin, making the description incomplete for an agent to fully understand the operation's implications.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters, including the default for 'protocol'. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema; the only added detail (SSH default) is already present in the schema's default field. Thus, baseline 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 action ('Clone') and the resource ('a repository'), with a specific verb+resource construction. It also distinguishes from siblings by being the only clone operation, and adds protocol specificity (SSH/HTTPS). This is a clear, specific purpose statement.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you want to clone a repository) but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives. Since no sibling is a clone operation, differentiation is not needed, but the lack of context on prerequisites or protocol selection leaves usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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