get_repo_permission

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that it is a read operation and lists possible return values, but it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior for invalid inputs. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but could be more explicit.

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?

One short sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words; every part contributes to understanding.

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 output schema, no annotations, and 3 self-explanatory params, the description covers the basics: what it does and what it returns. However, it could be more complete by noting authentication dependencies (e.g., requires repo access) or error handling. For a simple read tool, it is minimally adequate.

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 0%, but the parameter names ('owner', 'repo', 'username') are self-explanatory. The description does not explain each parameter beyond the tool's purpose, but in the context of GitHub APIs, these names are clear. However, it would benefit from confirming that 'username' is the GitHub username.

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 ('Get'), the target ('a user's effective permission level on a repo'), and the possible return values ('admin/write/read/none'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'set_repo_collaborator_permission' and 'list_repo_collaborators' by focusing on a single user's permission retrieval.

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 implies the tool is for checking a single user's permission, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_repo_collaborators' (which lists all collaborators) or when not to use it (e.g., for non-existent users). No exclusions or context for usage.

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