repos_create

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

The addition of 'and clone' provides some behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint false annotation, indicating that the tool not only creates a repo but also clones it from the remote URL. However, it does not disclose consequences like handling duplicate paths or existing repos, which limits transparency.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It is not verbose, but could be slightly more informative about the cloning behavior. Still, it avoids waste.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, including optional ones like branch and sparse_checkout, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how parameters affect behavior, when the output schema is returned, or how it fits with sibling tools. Output schema exists but the description lacks context around its contents.

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 50% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond what the input schema provides, so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 'Create (and clone) a new repo in the workspace,' specifying the verb 'create' and resource 'repo,' with the scope 'in the workspace.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like repos_delete, repos_get, repos_list, and repos_update by indicating creation action.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as repos_update or repos_list. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use information provided. Usage is only implied by the action 'create,' which is insufficient for an agent to decide among siblings.

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