List indexed repositories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does convey that this is a read-only enumeration ('Which repositories are in the graph') and the returned information, but it does not mention sorting, pagination, or clarify the term 'graph'. It is minimally transparent but not richly detailed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning: 'Which repositories', 'in the graph', and 'how many files each has' together convey the purpose and output efficiently.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description adequately covers the output shape (repositories and file counts). However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, a slightly more explicit return structure or a note that it is read-only would make it more complete. It is nearly sufficient but not perfect.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to explain, and the schema coverage is trivially complete.

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 title 'List indexed repositories' supplies the verb, and the description specifies exactly what is returned: which repositories are in the graph and their file counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like path_between, index_repo, and drop_repo, which serve different purposes.

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. The description only states what is listed, without any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, so an agent has no explicit help choosing among siblings.

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