git_clone

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions the tool clones into a new workspace directory and fails if target exists, but lacks disclosure of authentication needs, side effects like fetching from remote, 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?

Two concise sentences plus a mention of alternatives, front-loading the purpose. No wasted words; every sentence serves a clear function.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, failure condition, and parameter details. Missing output information (e.g., what is returned on success) and side effects, but provides adequate context for a cloning tool given the sibling list.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds value by clarifying URL formats ('gitopia://owner/repo or owner/repo') and that local_path is workspace-relative. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'clone' and resource 'repository', specifying it provides a local copy for reading or modifying code. It distinguishes from siblings by naming alternatives get_file_contents and bootstrap_repo.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when you need a local copy...') and provides alternatives for other cases. However, it doesn't explicitly list conditions when cloning should be avoided, though the alternatives imply them.

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