boj_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. The description 'Get a GitHub repository' gives no information about behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what data is returned, error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. This is inadequate for a tool that interacts with an external API like GitHub.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get a GitHub repository'), making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration or redundancy.

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 the complexity of interacting with GitHub's API, the lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns (e.g., repository metadata, status codes), error conditions, authentication needs, or how it differs from similar tools. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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 input schema has 2 parameters (owner, repo) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description 'Get a GitHub repository' adds minimal context by implying these parameters identify a repository, but it doesn't explain what 'owner' and 'repo' represent (e.g., GitHub username/organization and repository name), their format, or examples. This is insufficient compensation for the schema gap.

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 'Get a GitHub repository' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('GitHub repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other GitHub tools like 'list_repos' or 'get_file' by focusing on retrieving a specific repository. However, it doesn't specify what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieving metadata vs. full content), which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for retrieving repository details) versus when to use sibling tools like 'boj_github_list_repos' (for listing repositories) or 'boj_github_get_file' (for retrieving specific files). There's no context about prerequisites, authentication needs, or common use cases.

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