github_get_repo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a read operation, it omits any detail about the return payload, making the behavior opaque.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and subject. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

As a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain what 'details' are returned, nor does it address authentication or error conditions. It is minimally viable but leaves the agent with questions about the response structure.

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 schema fully documents both parameters (owner and repo) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 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 tool's function: 'Get details about a specific repository.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('repository'), and the phrase 'specific' distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_list_repos and github_search_repos. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tools or elaborate on what 'details' includes.

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 its use when a known, specific repository is required, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_search_repos or github_get_file. No exclusions or conditional advice is given.

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