GitHub Repository Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the important constraint 'Public repos only' and lists returned fields, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. It does not contradict annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get full details of a GitHub repository') and efficiently lists key fields. No redundant or irrelevant information is present.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, read-only), the description is comprehensive enough. It explains the purpose, key fields, and access constraint. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. Minor gaps include missing info on pagination or error cases, but overall it's sufficient.

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%, with both 'owner' and 'repo' parameters documented in the schema. The description does not add new parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full details of a GitHub repository', listing specific fields (stars, forks, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like developer.github.search and developer.github.user by focusing on a single repo's details and explicitly noting 'Public repos only'.

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 a clear usage constraint ('Public repos only via GitHub API'), which helps the agent know when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or direct to alternatives like developer.github.search for searching or developer.github.user for user info, though these are implied by context.

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