get_repo_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool is read-only in nature (getting info) and enumerates return fields, which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the directory is not inside a git repo (error behavior), or whether it requires network access to determine the platform.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste. It front-loads the purpose and enumerates the specific information returned. Nothing extraneous.

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 simple read-only info tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely adequate. It lists the returned data points. However, without an output schema or error-behavior notes, the agent gets no return-format details — a minor gap for an otherwise low-complexity tool.

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% for the single cwd parameter, which is well-described in the schema ('must be inside a git repository'). The description doesn't add semantic meaning beyond the schema, but with only one parameter and full coverage, 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?

Clear verb+resource ('Get information about the current git repository') with explicit enumerated attributes (current branch, default branch, remote URL, detected platform). Distinguishes from siblings reasonably — list_templates, prepare/publish_merge_request are clearly different operations, though it doesn't 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 context (must be inside a git repository, working directory) is implied through the cwd parameter description. There's no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, but the sibling tools are different enough (templates, merge requests) that the usage is reasonably clear from purpose alone.

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