get_repo

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'gets details', implying a read-only operation, but it does not explain error behavior (e.g., non-existent repo), return contents, authorization needs, or any constraints the agent should know before invoking it.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words and communicates its basic intent up front. However, it is very terse and needs more detail to truly stand alone, though it is not overly verbose.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations means the description should explain what 'detalhes' realistically includes or what the agent can expect as a result, but it does not. While the 2-parameter schema is simple and clear, the behavior around failures and return shape is left entirely to the agent to guess.

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%, since both 'owner' and 'repo' are already described in the JSON schema. The description does not add any parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 uses a clear verb ('obtém' / 'gets') and a specific resource ('detalhes de um repositório específico'), which adequately conveys this tool retrieves a single repository's details. It implicitly distinguishes from list_repos via the word 'específico', but it does not name that sibling or specify which details are returned.

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 about when to use this tool versus list_repos, list_issues, or search_code. No alternatives are mentioned, and there are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions for the agent to follow.

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