get_repo_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that it returns repository metadata plus agent_guidelines, and that an error is returned if the repo is not found, which goes beyond what the annotations or schema provide.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary, followed by useful return details and a concise Args/Returns structure. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or filler.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers everything needed: input format, what fields are returned, a usage scenario, and error behavior. There are no critical gaps for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 schema provides only the parameter name and type with no description, but the description fully compensates by specifying the required format: 'Repository in org/name format (e.g. "encode/httpx")'. This is exactly the semantic information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 a specific verb and resource: it gets a repository profile with maintainer guidelines, AI policy, and merge rate. It names concrete fields returned, making the tool's purpose unmistakable, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools.

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 explicit context for when to use the tool: 'Use this to understand a repo's contribution culture before submitting a PR.' It does not mention exclusions or when to prefer a sibling tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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