gh_get_repo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read behavior is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or the specific data returned, failing to add value over the structured metadata.

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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It is efficient and easy to parse, though its brevity comes at the cost of missing detail.

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 relatively simple with two clear required parameters, read-only annotations, and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks any usage context or alternative tool guidance, making it just minimally complete for a straightforward get operation.

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 makes no mention of 'owner' or 'repo' parameters. With no compensation, the agent must rely solely on parameter names, which are only moderately self-explanatory. This is a significant gap for a tool with two required parameters.

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 action ('Get details') and resource ('a specific repository'), which distinguishes it from list/search tools by implying a single repository lookup. However, it does not elaborate on what 'details' includes, so it is specific but not fully precise.

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 like gh_info or gh_search_repos. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual triggers, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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