git_remote_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that with '(read-only)' reinforcement and the note that credentials in URLs are masked, which tells the agent it is safe to surface output without redaction work.

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 compact sentences, the primary purpose front-loaded and the safety/privacy caveat appended. No filler, nothing redundant.

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?

Output schema and annotations are rich, so the description needn't explain return values or safety. However, for a tool taking a repo scope argument, the absence of any statement about what 'repo' selects leaves a gap an agent must guess at.

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 single 'repo' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden — yet it never mentions the parameter. It doesn't say whether 'repo' is a filesystem path, a repository name, or how the default '.' is interpreted, leaving a real ambiguity unresolved.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('configured remotes and their URLs'), with scope stated precisely. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like git_repository_status or git_branch_list, which cover different aspects of repository state.

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 narrow purpose implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance or mention of alternatives (e.g., git_repository_status for branch/tracking info). An agent must infer from the name that this is the tool for remote enumeration.

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