read_repo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses behavior: it's a local analysis using AST for Python and regex for JS/TS, makes no API calls, and returns raw JSON. It doesn't mention side effects or restrictions, but the tool is read-only by nature, and the description is honest about its methods.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by technical approach, then usage recommendation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has a single required parameter and no output schema. The description explains what the tool returns (raw structured JSON) and its limitations (no API calls). It covers all necessary context for an agent to understand when to invoke this tool and what it does.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for path. The tool description reinforces that the path is a local repository root directory but adds no new semantic depth beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'Analyzes a local code repository' and specifies the resource (local repo) and the scope: structural information, languages, tech stack, entry points, modules. It distinguishes from siblings like get_portfolio by noting it provides 'deeper technical signal' and is 'pure local analysis'.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use: 'before analyzing job fit' and to supplement get_portfolio. While it doesn't list when not to use, the provided use cases and sibling tools implicitly guide an agent, and it mentions an alternative (get_portfolio). Exclusions are not explicit but the guidance is clear.

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