Get clone links

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that URLs are returned, but does not address potential authentication requirements, error scenarios (e.g., repo not found), or whether the 'project' parameter is ever required. This is minimal for a read operation.

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?

A single, precise sentence that front-loads the action and output. There is zero redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple getter, the description covers the primary purpose and return content. However, it omits clarification on the optional project parameter's role and does not mention any edge cases (e.g., ambiguous repositoryId). Given the lack of output schema, the description is mostly adequate but leaves minor gaps.

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 makes no mention of parameters. Schema coverage is 50% (repositoryId is documented as 'Repository name or ID', but project has no description). The description does not compensate for the undocumented project parameter, leaving the agent without clarity on its purpose or when it is needed.

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 states a clear action ('Return') and specific resource ('Azure Repos repository') and enumerates the exact output types (HTTPS, SSH, web URLs). It naturally differentiates from siblings like get_repository (which would return metadata) and list_repositories (which lists repos).

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?

No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over get_repository or list_repositories. The description only states what it does, not the conditions that make it the right choice, nor does it mention any alternative tools.

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