Look up a repository by name

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

Annotations already indicate this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it warns that repositories existing in the forge but not activated in Woodpecker return a 404, and it clarifies the tool's role as the id-resolution step. This is valuable edge-case disclosure.

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?

Three compact sentences, each earning its place. The core purpose is front-loaded, the relationship to sibling tools is stated next, and the failure mode with alternative is given last. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with complete schema coverage, full annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, the 404 edge case, and how to recover, leaving no significant gap for an agent to call it incorrectly.

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 already fully documents full_name with its format, pattern, and description. The description's mention of an 'owner/name pair' reinforces the schema but does not add substantial new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Resolves') and a precise resource ('owner/name pair to a repository id'). It clearly distinguishes itself from related tools by explaining that every other repository tool takes the numeric id and this is how you obtain it.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: any time you need the numeric repository id for other repository tools. It also provides an actionable alternative for the failure case, directing users to list_repositories with include_inactive when the repository is not activated in Woodpecker.

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