get_repo_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists the returned fields but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is insufficiently transparent about the tool's behavior beyond the return values.

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 lists the key metadata fields. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and efficiently conveys the scope. Every part of the sentence adds value.

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 has low complexity with two simple parameters. The description lists the return fields, which is helpful. However, it does not mention error conditions, authentication requirements, or data format details. Overall, it provides sufficient context for a basic read tool but lacks some nuance.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the 'owner' and 'repo' parameters. It only reiterates that the tool gets metadata for a specific repository.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed metadata for a specific GitHub repository', listing the specific metadata fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_repos (which lists repos) and search_code (which searches code).

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 that the tool should be used when detailed metadata for a specific repo is needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_repos or summarize_pr. No exclusions or when-not-to-use instructions are given.

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