Get Repository Info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool works on public repositories and lists the returned data points, which is useful. However, it does not discuss rate limits, authentication requirements, or any error behavior, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 exactly two sentences and every word contributes: the first sentence defines the tool's output, and the second defines its usage context. No unnecessary elaboration or repetition of schema details.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description lists the exact fields returned (stars, forks, language, etc.), which compensates for lacking an output schema. It also gives usage context. Minor gaps include no mention of error handling or rate limits, but the tool's simplicity makes this largely sufficient.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('owner' and 'repo') with examples, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get key stats about a public GitHub repository' and enumerates the specific stats returned. The use-case sentence 'when the user asks about a specific repo' distinguishes this from the sibling 'search_repos' tool, which is for searching 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 provides an explicit when-to-use statement: 'Use when the user asks about a specific repo's popularity or details.' However, it does not address when not to use it or explicitly name the alternative sibling 'search_repos', so it lacks a full exclusion/alternative comparison.

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