github_repo

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

No annotations provided. The description only includes pricing and API URL, with no mention of side effects, authentication needs, or that this is likely a read-only operation. The pricing info is not behavioral transparency.

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 cluttered with pricing and API URL, which are not useful for understanding tool purpose. The main functional part is minimal and not front-loaded. Every line should serve the agent's understanding.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., repository details). It does not. The tool is simple but information is insufficient for complete understanding.

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 single parameter 'repo' has a schema description '仓库名 owner/repo', which matches the parameter name and function. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the 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 starts with '[Search] GitHub仓库', indicating a search function, but the parameter 'repo' expects a specific owner/repo format, suggesting it fetches details for a single repository, not a general search. The phrase is ambiguous and does not distinguish from sibling 'github_search'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github_search'. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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