github-api.getRepo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the logical inputs; it does not mention authentication, rate limits, not-found behavior, or return semantics, though the output schema partially covers that.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to identifying both the action and the required resource identifiers.

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 read-only operation with strong annotations and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The main gap is that the owner/name inputs named in the description do not appear in the input schema, leaving some invocation ambiguity.

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?

With zero parameters in the schema, the description still names the meaningful logical inputs 'owner' and 'name', adding value beyond the empty input schema. It does not specify types or exact argument names, but the 0-param baseline keeps this at a reasonable score.

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 'Get' and names the resource ('a GitHub repository') along with its key identifiers ('by owner and name'), so the action is immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like searchRepos and listRepoIssues by indicating a single-repository fetch rather than search or issue listing.

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 when to use the tool: when a specific repository is needed by owner and name. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using searchRepos when the owner/name is unknown or listRepoIssues when issue data is needed.

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