parse-github-repo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the transformation from input to output, but does not mention edge cases such as invalid formats, non-GitHub URLs, or error behavior. For a simple parsing utility this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, input format, and output. There is no redundant content, and every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter parsing utility with no output schema, the description gives the essential information: input format and structured output. It could mention validation/error behavior, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description mirrors that single parameter without adding much extra detail. It does clarify that the output is owner and repo fields, but the parameter itself is already well-documented in the schema.

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 ('parse') and resource ('GitHub URL or owner/repo string') and states the output ('structured owner and repo fields'). It is clearly distinct from the sibling workflow-management tools.

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 clearly defines the tool's input and purpose, making it obvious when to use it: when a GitHub identifier needs to be decomposed into owner and repo. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling tools are unrelated workflow operations, so no real ambiguity exists.

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