gh_repo_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('create') and 'set up remote' without detailing authentication requirements, default visibility (private), potential to override existing remotes, or error handling if the repo already exists. These are significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 sentence of eight words, front-loading the essential information and containing no wasteful language. It is appropriately concise for the simplicity of the tool.

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 is relatively simple, but given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It omits what the tool returns (e.g., repo URL), prerequisites like GitHub authentication, and behavioral details such as default visibility. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the parameters 'name', 'visibility', or 'description'. It mentions neither defaults (e.g., visibility defaults to private) nor how the parameters map to the operation. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no extra value.

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 'Create' and the resource 'a new GitHub repository', and adds the specific action 'and set up remote'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gh_pr_create or git_commit, which handle different GitHub operations.

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 usage for creating a new repository and setting up a remote, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not reference alternatives such as git_full_setup, so the reader must infer the appropriate context.

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