codacy_repositories

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

Annotations mark destructiveHint=true. Description elaborates: setup invalidates caches, marks as [DESTRUCTIVE] [Cache-Control: no-store], and notes that Grade=A may not mean zero issues. No contradictions with annotations.

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 repetitive, especially the 'get' action instructions appearing twice. It includes redundant '[INSTRUCTIONS]' tags and could be half the length without losing clarity.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers usage, workflow, common mistakes, and behavioral traits effectively. However, missing details about return format (e.g., data structure) slightly reduce completeness.

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% and describes each parameter concisely. The description adds value by explaining the workflow for each action and the meaning of 'get' output, but does not deeply elaborate on parameter syntax beyond the schema.

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 specifies the tool returns repository health metrics (grade, coverage, complexity, issues) and lists three distinct actions (get, list_branches, setup). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on repository-level analysis versus overviews or pull requests.

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?

Explicitly states when to use setup ('only when user wants to add a new repository'), warns against calling setup on already-tracked repos, and directs to codacy_issues.list for actual issue breakdown, providing clear alternative usage guidance.

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