get_code_owners

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

Description states 'Read-only' and specifies the return format as JSON. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description reinforces and adds detail. It also discloses the dependency on git. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences: purpose, usage guideline, return format. No extraneous information. All sentences serve a distinct purpose and are front-loaded.

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 read-only query tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, usage, alternative, prerequisites, and return structure. It lacks mention of performance implications or limits on repository size, but the schema limits file count to 20. Overall, it is nearly complete for effective use.

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 sole parameter 'file_paths' is already described in the schema with 'File paths to check ownership for'. The description reinforces this but adds no new constraints or formatting details. The high schema coverage (100%) means the parameter semantics are adequately captured, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool identifies git-based code ownership for files, using 'git shortlog'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_symbol_owners' by specifying that it works at the file level, not symbol level.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'Use to identify who to ask about specific files.' It also provides an alternative: 'For symbol-level ownership use get_symbol_owners instead.' Additionally, it notes the prerequisite 'Requires git'.

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