stars_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses case-insensitive lookup and partial matching, but it does not explain what happens if no repository matches or if partial matching returns multiple results.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and parameter guidance following immediately. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 one parameter and an existing output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose and parameter matching semantics well, but it leaves a small gap around ambiguous or missing repository matches.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single required parameter. It does so by explaining the expected 'owner/name' format, noting case-insensitivity, and stating that partial matching is accepted.

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 specific verb and resource: viewing the full information of a single favorited project by repository name. The phrase '单个' and '按仓库名' distinguishes it from a broad search, though it does not explicitly name the sibling stars_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?

Usage is implied: use this when you know or partially know the repository name and want one favorite's details. It does not explicitly say when to use stars_search instead, nor does it describe exclusions or handling of ambiguous matches.

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