get_repository

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 only says 'gets detailed information,' which is a read operation, but provides no detail on what 'detailed' includes, whether authentication is required, error behavior, or response structure. This is barely above a tautology.

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 wasted words. It is front-loaded and easily readable. It could include more actionable guidance, but for its length it is well-structured.

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 is insufficient for a complete tool definition. It does not explain what fields or details are returned, which is especially important since there is no output schema. It also does not mention typical response qualities (e.g., metadata like stars, forks, owner info) or any potential errors like 'repo not found.' Simple but incomplete.

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%: both parameters (owner and repo) have meaningful descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, but the schema already handles them, so the 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 tool gets detailed information of a specific repository, using a specific verb ('obtiene') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_repositories or search_repositories by emphasizing 'específico' (specific), though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 usage when you need details of a single repository, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings or mention any exclusions. For example, it does not say 'use search_repositories to find repos' or 'use list_repositories for all repos.' This is minimal but not misleading.

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