Get GitHub repository information

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly frames the operation as a read-only metadata query and discloses the key result categories including existence, owner, visibility, default branch, fork/archived status, and URL. The 'allowlisted organization' phrasing also signals an access constraint, though failure behavior is not explicitly covered.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the operational purpose and follows with the concrete metadata fields returned. Every phrase earns its place; there is no redundancy.

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 with only two required parameters, the schema covers both, and an output schema is indicated. The description supplies the essential behavioral framing and return-value summary, so an agent has enough context to select and invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds useful context about the allowlisted organization and the kind of metadata returned, but does not materially enhance parameter-level 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 states a specific verb ('Query metadata'), a specific resource ('a GitHub repository'), and a scope ('under an allowlisted organization'). It also enumerates the returned fields, clearly distinguishing it from github_repository_create and other file/project 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 intended use is inferable from 'Query metadata' and the sibling github_repository_create, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative-tool routing are provided.

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