get_repository_info_tool

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 states the action and method but does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, what specific information is returned, any restrictions, or potential side effects. While it is likely a harmless read operation, the description does not explicitly confirm this, leaving the agent to infer it.

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, lean sentence that fronts the action and resource. Every word adds value; there is no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters.

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 no parameters and an output schema, which reduces the need for descriptive detail about return values. The description fully covers what the tool does, and the output schema presumably details the returned information. The only gap is the lack of usage context relative to siblings, but given the simplicity of the operation, this is a minor omission.

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 schema is empty with zero parameters, so the description has no parameter meanings to clarify. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, this is a 4. The description correctly omits any parameter discussion, as there is nothing to explain 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 states a specific action ('Get') and resource ('Alfresco repository information'), and adds the method ('using Discovery Client'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like browse_repository or get_node_properties, which focus on browsing or node-level details. The purpose is 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'as tool instead of resource' is a technical note about invocation style, not a usage condition. It does not mention when this is preferable to browse_repository, search, or other repository-level tools.

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