Clone a repository (temporary)

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses key behaviors: shallow clone, sandboxed environment, size/time limits, auto-deletion after TTL, and the nature of the return value (handle and curated file tree). It also notes that the repo must be public and that indexed names resolve to real clone URL and branch, adding meaningful context.

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 concise yet thorough, with four sentences that each add value: purpose, input types and resolution, clone characteristics and TTL, and output/lifecycle. It is well-structured, front-loading the main action, and contains no wasted words.

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?

For a clone tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, input format, behavioral constraints (shallow, sandboxed, time-limited), output (handle + curated tree), and follow-up action (cleanup). The output schema explains return values, so the description need not list them, and it still manages to be sufficiently complete.

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 describes the 'repo' parameter as an indexed repo name or full https URL. The description adds value by explaining that indexed names are resolved to their real clone URL and branch, and gives a concrete example. This goes beyond the schema's coverage, so it earns a 4 rather than the baseline 3.

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 clones a public Git repository to review files, with a specific verb ('clone') and resource ('repository'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining it returns a handle for use with repo_list_files, repo_read_file, and repo_grep, making its role as an entry point unmistakable.

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 indicates when to use it ('so you can review actual files') and provides lifecycle instructions ('Call repo_cleanup when done'), plus how to use the returned handle with sibling tools. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over others.

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