provision

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses the exact order of operations, that steps are skipped if already done, that it creates local files and a remote repo, pushes, seeds, and invites partners. It also notes the auth requirement, providing a comprehensive behavioral picture.

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 well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then a numbered step list, then parameter notes. It is long but each sentence provides value—no fluff, clear headings, and appropriate front-loading.

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's complexity, the description fully covers prerequisites, actions, idempotency, and return value ('Returns a summary... plus the clone URL'). The presence of an output schema means return format details need not be repeated, and the description still mentions the key output.

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 0%, so the description compensates thoroughly. It explains each parameter: repo (owner/name, bare name, or empty), partner_github (usernames, separators, override), private (default private), and description (optional). This adds critical meaning beyond the schema's type/default fields.

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 the tool's function: 'Create the shared GitHub repository if it doesn't exist yet, then leave both collaborators ready to use the claim protocol.' It uses a specific verb (create) and resource (GitHub repository), and the detailed numbered steps distinguish it from sibling tools like survey/claim.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Run this ONCE, by one person, before anyone calls survey()/claim().' It also mentions idempotency and prerequisites (gh CLI, auth), making it clear when to use versus relying on sibling tools.

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