get_repo

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates the tool returns data (name, id, etc.), implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state safety (e.g., no side effects) or any required permissions or rate limits.

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 concise (34 words), front-loaded with the usage instruction, and contains no superfluous information. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 has a simple input schema and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return fields (name, id, etc.). It does not cover potential constraints like authentication or rate limits, but for a basic get-repository tool it is largely complete.

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 only states 'Requires owner and name' without adding semantic context beyond the schema. The meaning of 'owner' and 'name' (e.g., GitHub username and repo name) is implied but not explicitly clarified.

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 verb and resource: 'Use this when you need detailed information about a specific repository' and lists return fields. It also explicitly references sibling tools (list_repos, git_clone) for differentiation.

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 states when to use ('Use this when you need detailed information about a specific repository') and provides implicit alternatives with 'See also: list_repos, git_clone'.

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