github_repo_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Return metadata,' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose potential authentication needs, rate limits, error behaviors (e.g., 404 for missing repo), or the structure of the returned metadata beyond what an output schema might cover.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no redundancy, and it is immediately scannable.

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 tool is simple with only two parameters, and an output schema exists, so lack of return value detail is acceptable. However, the description provides no context about when this tool is appropriate, potential prerequisites, or edge cases. It is minimally complete but lacks helpful behavioral context.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (owner and repo) with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, such as format constraints or examples, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema covers the parameters fully.

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 returns metadata for a GitHub repository with a specific verb (Return) and resource (GitHub repository metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_list_issues, github_get_pr, and github_search_repos, which focus on different GitHub data.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the name and sibling tools imply it is for general repository metadata lookup. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, but the intended use is reasonably clear from context.

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