bootstrap_repo

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

The description details the tool's actions (creating repo, initializing locally, adding files, pushing commit), which is transparent about its write operations. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, error states, or whether it can overwrite existing local directories, leaving some 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 coherent paragraph that is well-structured, starting with usage guidance, then listing actions and parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the complexity of the 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?

Given the 8 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description covers the essential functionality and most parameters. However, the missing output description and the required parameter error detract from completeness. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 description adds meaning to most parameters by listing them with defaults and examples (e.g., gitignore_template options). However, it contradicts the input schema by stating only 'owner_id' and 'name' are required, while the schema also marks 'create_readme' and 'create_gitignore' as required. This inconsistency reduces trust and clarity.

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 creates a brand new project from scratch, including remote repo creation, local initialization, and initial commit. It specifically distinguishes itself from the sibling 'create_repo' by mentioning 'See also: create_repo', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you need to create a brand new project from scratch' and references 'create_repo' as an alternative, providing clear guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., when a repo already exists), which would strengthen the guidelines.

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