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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing whether this is a safe read operation, how it handles large repositories, or what the output looks like. It only says 'summarise' with no hint of side effects, rate limits, or return shape, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.

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 with no fluff, which is good. However, it is under-specified to the point of being terse, offering no structure or additional headers that could aid rapid parsing. It earns a middle score for being brief yet minimally informative.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify what the summary contains and how it is presented. The current text only says 'summarise', leaving out essential details like whether it returns a text block, structured data, or a list of key points. This gap makes the tool incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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 schema describes the sole parameter 'repo' as a string with no description, and the tool description does not explain what format the repo identifier should take (e.g., owner/name, URL, or local path). With 0% schema coverage and no compensation from the description, the agent is left guessing the parameter's meaning.

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 'Summarise a repository's open issues' clearly states the verb (summarise) and resource (open issues), and the mention of 'repository' distinguishes it from listing or reading files. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like listOpenIssues beyond the verb choice, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listOpenIssues or getRepoInfo. The description implies a high-level overview use case, but it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or contexts where another tool would be preferred.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Get basic information', which implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly confirm this, nor does it mention potential errors, rate limits, or permissions. The lack of detail leaves significant ambiguity.

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 concise at one sentence, but it is under-specified and does not provide enough detail to be genuinely useful. It is not a verbose description, but it lacks substance, so the appropriate size is not matched with informative 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 tool with no output schema, the description should explain what information is returned, but 'basic information' is left undefined. It also lacks any context on error handling or return format. Given the simplicity of the tool, some completeness is expected, but the description falls short.

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 sole parameter 'repo' is a string with no description, and the tool description does not explain what format is expected (e.g., 'owner/repo' vs. URL). With 0% schema description coverage, the parameter semantics are entirely unexplained, making correct invocation difficult.

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 identifies the resource as 'repository', clearly indicating it retrieves repository information. However, the phrase 'basic information' is vague and does not specify what fields are returned, nor does it explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like listOpenIssues.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description is a single sentence with no context about use cases, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer when getRepoInfo is appropriate.

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

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

The description implies a read-only operation but discloses no behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or return format. With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and fails to provide this context.

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 with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description still omits important context such as pagination behavior, sorting, filtering, and return value structure. An agent would struggle to correctly invoke and interpret the result without additional information.

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 0% (no description for the 'repo' parameter). The description only vaguely confirms 'repo' refers to a repository, but does not specify expected format (e.g., 'owner/name' or URL) or provide examples, so it does not adequately compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('open issues') scoped to 'a repository', which differentiates it from sibling tools like getRepoInfo and createIssueSummary.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is purely functional and lacks contextual cues, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of explaining behavior. 'Read an allowlisted file safely' says what it does but not what happens on disallowed paths, error handling, or return format. The word 'safely' is vague and not elaborated.

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 sentence that is to the point, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word is meaningful, with no filler.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description still lacks critical details like what constitutes 'safe', what happens for non-allowlisted paths, and what the return value represents. It is not complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema has one parameter, 'path', with no description. Schema coverage is 0%. The description adds minimal meaning by implying the path must be allowlisted, but it doesn't clarify path format, allowed values, or how allowlisting works.

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 reads a file, with the specific constraint that it must be allowlisted. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on repo info, issues, or summaries.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implied that it's for reading files, there are no stated criteria or exclusions.

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