bb_get_repository

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It makes the read-only nature clear via 'Get' and lists return fields, but it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or that an invalid project key causes a 404 (though that is noted in the schema parameter description). The description is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get full details for a single repository') and then delivers value by enumerating the returned fields. There is no wasted or duplicated 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?

For a simple 2-parameter read operation with fully documented schema properties, the description covers the purpose and return content without an output schema. The main gap is the absence of usage guidance relative to sibling lookup tools, but nothing critical is missing for a straightforward get operation.

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%, with detailed descriptions for both projectKey and repoSlug, including exact casing rules and example values. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full details for a single repository'), then enumerates the exact information returned: project key, slug, name, state, default branch, fork source, clone URLs, and web link. This clearly distinguishes it from list/search siblings, which operate on multiple 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 full details for a known single repository are needed, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bb_search_repositories, bb_detect_repo, or bb_list_repositories. No when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites are stated.

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