Get repository details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a fetch/read operation and lists the metadata returned, which is helpful. However, it does not mention potential error cases (e.g., 404), authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 that efficiently communicates the purpose and key output fields. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It lists the returned metadata fields, giving the agent a clear idea of the result. However, it could briefly mention error handling or authentication requirements for full completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the owner and repo parameters beyond what the schema already provides; it only lists the metadata fields returned, which is not directly parameter semantics.

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 tool fetches metadata for a single GitHub repository and lists the specific fields (description, stars, forks, etc.). This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_repositories and list_issues.

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 usage for when you have a known repo and need metadata, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_repositories or get_readme. Sibling tool names provide context, but no direct guidance is given.

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