get_repo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get metadata,' implying a safe read operation, but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior for missing repos, or any side effects. This is minimal for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It includes the primary verb, the resource, and a list of returned metadata fields, making it highly scannable and efficient.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description is adequate but minimal. It lists return fields, which helps agents understand output, but with no annotations or output schema, additional context like authentication or error handling would improve completeness. The description does not explicitly differentiate from list_repos, though the singular scope is implied.

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 100% for both parameters (owner and repo), each with descriptive text. The description adds nothing about parameter format, relationships, or edge cases, but because the schema fully documents the parameters, a 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get metadata for a repo' and lists specific metadata fields (description, stars, language, default branch, visibility). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_repos (which lists multiple repos) or get_issue (which fetches issue-specific data), showing a specific verb, resource, and scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives. It does not mention list_repos for multiple repos, search_code for content search, or any other exclusions. The usage is implied from the name and description but not explicitly stated, so agents receive minimal selection guidance.

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