bb_get_repository

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation but fails to mention any specifics like required permissions, error behavior for nonexistent repositories, or whether results are paginated. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool that may have significant side effects or limitations unknown to the agent.

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 with no redundant words or filler. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 'get details' tool with no output schema and moderate parameter complexity, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps. It does not clarify what fields of the repository are returned, how the filter and output_format interact with the response, or whether this tool is appropriate for large repositories. The agent would need to infer these details from the schema and tool name.

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%, so all four parameters (workspace, repo_slug, filter, output_format) already have detailed descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so it correctly stays at the baseline of 3, relying on the schema to carry the semantic load.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('repository'), with 'specific' indicating this tool targets a single repository rather than listing many. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bb_list_repositories, though it lacks detail about what 'detailed information' includes.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as bb_browse_repository or bb_list_repositories. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cues, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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