Fetch repository info

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds behavioral details beyond these: returns structured JSON, error handling for 404 and rate limits, and README truncation at 12000 chars. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with sections: what it fetches, when to use, Args, Returns, Errors. It is front-loaded with key information. Slightly verbose but every part adds value; could be more concise but still effective.

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 no output schema, the description explains return structure and error messages. Annotations cover safety, so the description completes the picture for a tool of moderate complexity. It lacks explicit details on exact fields of repo metadata, but overall is sufficient.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description repeats parameter names and types but adds little beyond what the schema provides. It does not add nuances like format or validation rules. Baseline of 3 for high coverage is appropriate.

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 'Fetch' and the specific resource 'public information about a GitHub repository'. It enumerates the fetched data (description, topics, license, stars, latest release, README content, root file list), distinguishing it from siblings like check_publish_readiness and build_announcement_brief, which have different purposes.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this when you need raw facts about a repository before writing about it or checking it.' While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient for the agent to decide.

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