Get Repo Health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the score is computed from commit recency, issue-triage ratio, and contributor diversity, and it notes the repo must be public. It does not detail the exact return shape or rate-limit behavior, but the core behavior is transparent for a read-only scoring 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the computation and output, the second states the intended use. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 the simple two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers inputs, output range, and use context. It could mention the exact response shape, but the score range and computation criteria are sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents both owner and repo with examples. The description adds only the 'public GitHub repo' context and does not deepen parameter meaning, matching the baseline expectation for well-documented 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 names a specific verb ('Computes') and resource ('maintenance-health score for a public GitHub repo'), and explicitly defines the output range (0-100). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like summarize_recent_commits and find_good_first_issues, which target different 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?

'Use this before deciding whether to depend on or contribute to a repo' gives a clear, actionable context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the stated use case is specific enough for an agent to route correctly.

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