get_git_repository

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'returns information' with no detail on safety, possible errors, or what exactly is returned. This is minimal and leaves the agent without meaningful behavioral context.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the core meaning.

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?

The tool has 4 optional parameters with no required fields and no output schema. The description does not explain how these parameters should be combined, what information is returned, or potential edge cases. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that appears simple but has identification 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a clear description (repoId, repoName, projectId, projectKey). The description itself adds no parameter guidance, but the schema already handles parameter semantics well, grounding the baseline score at 3.

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 returns information about a specific Git repository, using a direct verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling get_git_repositories by emphasizing 'specific', which indicates singular vs. list.

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 phrase 'a specific' implies this tool is for fetching a single repository, contrasting with get_git_repositories for listing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, so guidance remains implicit.

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