Поиск VCS провайдера по URL репозитория

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

Annotations exist but are ambiguous (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description does not clarify whether this is a read-only lookup, what it returns, or any side effects. It adds no behavioral context beyond the one-line purpose, so the description carries minimal extra value.

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, direct sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and immediately states the tool's purpose.

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 no output schema, yet the description does not explain what 'finds' returns (e.g., provider object, name, ID) or how it handles URLs that do not match a provider. This missing behavioral info makes the tool incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 fully describes the single parameter (repository_url) with 'URL репозитория для поиска VCS провайдера'. The description adds no further parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 the tool 'finds VCS provider by repository URL' with a specific verb and resource. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_vcs_providers (which lists providers) and get_vcs_provider_repositories (which lists repositories).

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 does not mention get_vcs_providers or get_vcs_provider_repositories as related tools, nor does it explain the prerequisite of having a repository URL.

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