github_get_repository_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It merely states 'Get detailed information' without disclosing whether authentication is required, what kind of information is returned, or any rate limits or potential side effects. The behavior is opaque beyond the high-level purpose.

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 sentence and is concise. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could benefit from a bit more structure (e.g., listing key details) 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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values are self-documenting), the description lacks contextual information such as authentication requirements or how this tool compares to similar repository-related tools. Given the minimal description and no annotations, it is incomplete for an agent to safely and correctly invoke the tool in all situations.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention the parameters 'owner' and 'repo' or explain their roles. The agent is left to infer that 'owner' is the repository owner and 'repo' is the repository name from the parameter names alone, which is a significant gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific GitHub repository'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like github_search_repositories or github_get_file_content. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools such as github_search_repositories or github_get_file_content.

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