Compare repositories

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 reveal that the tool ranks by a composite score, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose what 'trend' means, what the output looks like, whether any mutation occurs, or other operational details. The gap is moderate, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the key distinction ('side-by-side trend comparison') and the range constraint. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff 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?

The tool has low complexity (one parameter) and high schema coverage, but no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what 'trend' means or what the composite score is based on, nor does it describe the return format. An agent would have to infer the output. For a tool that ranks repos, this is a notable gap, but the minimal scope keeps it from being a 2.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'repos' parameter as an owner/name list with min/max items. The description adds the notion of 'side-by-side' but not new syntax or semantics. Baseline of 3 is correct when schema fully covers the parameter.

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 specific action (side-by-side trend comparison) and a specific resource (github repositories), and adds a distinguishing detail (ranked by composite score). This clearly separates it from siblings like search_repos (search) and recommend_oss (recommend). The purpose is unambiguous and does not restate the title.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (when comparing 2-6 repositories side-by-side) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for different scenarios. Since siblings exist, an explicit exclusion would have raised it to a 5, but the implied usage is clear enough.

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