gitea_repos

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'list'—implying a read operation—but fails to disclose authentication needs, pagination, rate limits, or whether results are limited to the user's accessible repos. A listing tool should at least note any default constraints.

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 extremely short (one sentence) which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It lacks structure and feels incomplete rather than efficiently minimal.

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 no output schema, the description should give an idea of return format. It does not. The optional owner parameter is not mentioned in the description, so an agent doesn't know the scope of 'all'. This is insufficient for a tool with one parameter and no other structured hints.

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% (owner parameter has a description). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already explains the parameter, but the description does not enhance understanding.

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 'List all repositories from Gitea', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gitea_repo_info (single repo) and gitea_issues (issues). However, it's vague about scope—does 'all' mean all accessible repos or all in the instance? A more precise statement would be ideal.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gitea_repo_info for a single repository. The description is a single sentence with no context about prerequisites, filtering, or exclusions.

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