tool_onboard_repository

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions returning a file set and checklist but lacks details on side effects (e.g., does it write to disk?), required permissions, or error conditions. More transparency is needed for a mutation-like operation.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the high-level purpose, and the second adds specific actions and outputs. No redundancy or unnecessary 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?

Given the complexity of end-to-end onboarding and the presence of an output schema, the description covers key actions and outputs but omits prerequisites, error scenarios, and details about what is included in the returned file set. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no additional information beyond the schema, 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Onboard a repository end-to-end in a single call.' It lists specific actions (detects languages, generates skaffold.yaml and CI workflow) and outputs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like tool_generate_ci_workflow and tool_generate_skaffold_yaml by being a composite operation.

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 'end-to-end' usage but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the more granular sibling tools. No guidance is given on prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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