Get repository

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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds useful context about the scope (one repository) and the configuration fields returned. It omits error or auth details, but annotation coverage keeps this at an acceptable level.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the action and object, followed by a compact, useful enumeration of returned configuration fields. No wasted words.

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 one-parameter read tool with a rich schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the core purpose well. It would benefit from explicit alternative routing or error behavior, but these are largely covered by the schema and sibling list.

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 coverage is 100%, and the repo_id parameter's description already explains how to obtain an ID via lookup_repository and list_repositories. The tool description itself doesn't add parameter-level detail, so the baseline 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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('full Woodpecker configuration of one repository'), then enumerates concrete fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_repository_permissions or list_repositories.

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 intended context is clear: use this tool when you need the complete configuration for a single repository. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the schema's repo_id description does point to lookup_repository and list_repositories for finding IDs.

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