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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important behavioral fact — that the returned `id` field is a repo attachment id intended for get_triage_runs — but says nothing about pagination, ordering, auth requirements, or the other fields returned.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with what is listed. It is efficient, though the trailing 'and that the returned `id` field...' clause is grammatically tangled and slightly slows comprehension.

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?

For a parameterless read-only list tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and the key return field's downstream use. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned repo records, which is the main remaining gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter confusion is possible.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists GitHub repos attached to the caller's tenant') and scopes it to Codemind Resolve. It does not explicitly contrast with list_builds or other list_* siblings, but the resource is distinct enough that an agent can tell them apart.

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 implies the workflow by naming get_triage_runs as the downstream consumer of the returned `id`, which is useful routing context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no prerequisites.

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