get_repository

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state what is returned, potential error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements. With no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 conveys the essential purpose, and the docs link is a helpful addendum without unnecessary prose. Every element 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?

The tool is simple, and the name and description together convey the core function. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least indicate what data is returned (e.g., repository metadata). The lack of return-value information and usage context makes it merely minimally viable.

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 input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (owner and repo), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no semantic detail beyond restating 'by owner and name', 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 action ('Get') and the specific resource ('a GitHub repository') along with the two identifying parameters ('by owner and name'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_org or list_org_repos, as it targets a single repository.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_repos or list_org_repos. The description simply states what it does without any contextual or exclusionary information. The docs link is not a substitute for in-description usage guidance.

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