repo_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Summarise' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is evident from the verb. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, required permissions, or that the tool might access an external repository. The minimal disclosure is adequate but not thorough.

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, front-loaded with the main action 'Summarise the Lampa repository structure', followed by a succinct list of what is summarized. No extraneous words, making it directly actionable.

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 no output schema, the description partially explains the return value by listing contents (folders, entrypoints, scripts, plugins). It is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect, though it could mention that the output is a high-level summary and not a deep dive, which would fully align with sibling differentiations.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. It compensates by clarifying the tool's purpose beyond the schema's empty object, which satisfies the expectation for a param-free tool.

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 specifies the verb 'Summarise' and resource 'Lampa repository structure', listing concrete elements like top-level folders, entrypoints, scripts, and plugin list. This differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on narrow aspects (e.g., list_modules, plugin_deep_dive), making the tool's 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. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or that siblings like list_modules might be better for detailed module information. This leaves the agent without explicit usage context.

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