get_repository

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond being a read operation. It lacks details on permissions, error handling, or what 'detailed information' includes, leaving the agent with incomplete understanding.

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 brief, with one sentence for purpose and two lines for parameters. Information is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without 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?

While the description covers basic purpose and parameters, it omits details about the return format or what constitutes 'detailed information.' Given the absence of an output schema, more specificity would be beneficial for completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that 'project' is an Azure DevOps project name with a default, and 'repository_id' accepts both ID and name. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare strings.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific Git repository,' using the verb 'get' and specifying the resource ('repository') and scope ('specific'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_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 implies usage when details of a single repository are needed, contrasting with list_repositories. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, leaving it to the agent to infer.

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