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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Get repository information' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the information is returned in. It fails to describe any behavioral traits beyond the minimal inference from the verb 'get'.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It's front-loaded but lacks substance.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'repository information' encompasses, how results are structured, or any behavioral considerations. For a tool that likely returns structured data about repositories, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the relationship between 'repository' and 'provider' or provide examples). This meets the baseline score of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get repository information' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_repository_info'. While it indicates a read operation on repositories, it lacks specificity about what information is retrieved (e.g., metadata, statistics, configuration) and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_project_info' or 'get_current_branch' that also retrieve repository-related data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, nor does it differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'get_project_info' or 'get_merge_request'. This leaves the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic tool name.

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