Fetch a repository now

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

Adds rich behavioral detail beyond the annotations: a mirror-backed project is cloned if its mirror is missing, a local clone is fetched from its own remote, and failures surface as errors rather than cached answers. This meaningfully explains the readOnlyHint=false mutating behavior and is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the core action and keeps to three sentences, each carrying distinct information. Slightly dense and the final clause is somewhat circular ('this call exists to fetch'), but there is no wasted padding.

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?

For a mutation-flagged, open-world single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers trigger conditions, cache/failure behavior, and clone vs. mirror handling. It is close to complete; only return-value expectations remain implicit, which is acceptable given the tool's purpose.

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% and the single `project` parameter (including its default) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds behavioral context but no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a project immediately, ignoring its freshness policy') and immediately contrasts the behavior with a cached read. An agent can distinguish this from read siblings like get_file or list_refs without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the conditions that select this tool: refreshing a project whose policy is `manual` and checking for new refs without waiting for the TTL. That is clear when-to-use guidance, though it routes by condition rather than naming a specific sibling alternative.

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