gitExternalRepoInfo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'retrieves information,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs (e.g., for private repos), rate limits, error handling, or what specific information is returned. This is inadequate for a tool with potential external dependencies.

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, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary details, making it easy for an agent 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that interacts with external systems (Git repositories), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, return values, error cases, or how it fits with siblings, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly in complex scenarios.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (repourl, user, password) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool works with external repositories, which is minimal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly states the action ('Retrieves information') and resource ('about an external Git repository'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitRepos' or 'remoteRepoInfo', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for external repositories only (vs. local ones) or how it differs from 'gitRepos' or 'remoteRepoInfo' in the sibling list, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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