get_repository

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

The description provides only a bare action statement with no details on behavior. It does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, potential errors, or what happens if the repository does not exist. With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden and fails to disclose anything beyond the function's name.

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, focused sentence that wastes no words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Despite being a simple read tool, the description lacks important contextual information. It does not specify what 'details' will be returned, does not acknowledge the absence of an output schema, and offers no usage or behavioral caveats. The sibling list provides context but the description itself is minimal.

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 documents both parameters (projectKey, repositorySlug) with clear descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter formatting, defaults, or relationships, so it stays at the baseline score of 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 action ('Get'), the resource ('details of a specific repository'), and the scope ('specific'), effectively distinguishing it from list_repositories which would be used for multiple repositories. The verb+resource+scope combination is specific and 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. It does not explicitly say 'use this for a single repository' or contrast with list_repositories, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling context.

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