coolify_list_github_app_repositories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning that the tool is read-only, what happens if the ID is invalid, authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The description is too minimal for a tool with no annotations.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of repository names, URLs) or if any additional context is needed. An agent would lack information about the output format, which is critical for subsequent use.

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% (the 'id' parameter has a description 'ID of the GitHub App' in the schema). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides except for clarifying that the tool lists repositories, which is implicit. With full coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List repositories accessible by a GitHub App' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('repositories accessible by a GitHub App'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'coolify_list_github_apps' (which lists GitHub apps themselves) and 'coolify_list_github_app_branches' (which lists branches).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to list all GitHub apps or branches. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., needing the GitHub App ID beforehand), or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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