Source Fetch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds useful context about the separation from scanning and audit logging. It does not explicitly mention that cloning writes files to the local workspace, but this is inherent to the action and not misleading.

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 concise, consisting of two tight paragraphs. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds constraints and a caution, 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?

Provides necessary constraints and a safety caution, but omits an explanation of the depth parameter and does not describe the output or return value (despite an output schema being present). This leaves some ambiguity for a user unfamiliar with the tool.

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 shows two parameters (depth and repo_url) with no descriptions. The description clarifies repo_url implicitly by mentioning repository URLs, but depth is left completely unexplained, leaving a significant gap for users.

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 purpose with the verb 'Clone', specifies the target (public repository), and the outcome (into workspace for scanning). It also explicitly differentiates cloning from scanning, making the role unambiguous.

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?

Provides concrete usage constraints (only github/gitlab/bitbucket HTTPS URLs) and a caution to verify repository ownership before scanning. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related sibling tools, relying on implicit context.

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