screen_repository

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It states the action and supported URL shapes, but does not disclose that the tool downloads/scans file contents, the read-only nature beyond 'screen', network/resource implications, or any constraints. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with side effects like file downloads.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by supported URL formats. No filler; all sentences add value and the description is appropriately sized for a tool with a detailed schema.

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 combination of description and schema is enough to invoke the tool, but the description alone does not clarify how this relates to sibling tools, what a 'GitLumen-style risk report' contains, or the behavior/impact of downloads. With no output schema, a bit more detail about report output would improve completeness.

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 100%, so all five parameters (repoUrl, scope, branch, output, maxFiles) are already documented with types, defaults, enums, and a repository URL example. The description adds no parameter-level details, which is acceptable given the schema's rich coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Screen'), names the exact resource ('public GitHub repository or GitHub pull request URL'), and states the output ('GitLumen-style risk report'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_repository_structure and list_review_reports.

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 this tool (when a risk report on a public repo/PR is needed) but gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention that get_review_report/list_review_reports serve existing reports or that get_repository_structure covers structure-only requests. The 'public' qualifier is the only condition stated.

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