ado_get_repo

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool retrieves by name or ID, but does not disclose other behaviors like expected response format, error handling (e.g., 404 if not found), or rate limit considerations. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds minimal additional transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and object. It is efficient with no redundant words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include what is returned without becoming verbose.

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 description tells what the tool does but does not explain the return value or side effects. Given the tool has no output schema and is a simple get, the description is minimally adequate. However, additional context like 'returns a repository object' would improve completeness.

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%, so parameters repoId (name or ID) and project (defaults) are already documented. The description only repeats 'by name or ID' from the schema, adding no new meaning. Baseline 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 action (Get), the resource (single Git repository), and the identification method (by name or ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ado_list_repos (which lists all repos) and ado_create_repo (which creates), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ado_list_repos or ado_get_branch. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditional usage notes, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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