tea_repo_view

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. 'View details' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose other behaviors such as default repository handling (though the schema parameter description does mention it) or error conditions. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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 wasted words—it is efficient and front-loaded. However, it is extremely terse, which may limit the context provided, but for a simple tool this level of brevity is acceptable.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description states the core function but does not explain what 'details' are included or how the default repository is resolved (though that is in the parameter schema). It is adequate for basic tool selection but lacks richness.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage; the 'repo' parameter is well-documented with format and default behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the specific verb 'view' and identifies the resource as 'repository', clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like tea_issue_view and tea_pr_view. It unambiguously states what the tool does without any misleading or vague language.

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 when-to-use or alternative tool guidance is provided. The usage is implied by the tool name and description: if you need to view repository details, this is the tool. However, there is no mention of when to prefer this over tea_repos_list or how it relates to other view tools.

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