List Orca repos

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what an empty result means for a zero-argument list call.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields. The only remaining gap is the absence of any note on ordering or result size, which is minor for a simple enumeration tool.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the call is unfiltered and returns all registered repositories.

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 ("List the repositories registered in Orca") and even names the returned fields (id, name, path). It does not distinguish "repo" from the adjacent sibling concepts orca_project_list and orca_worktree_list, so an agent must infer the domain boundary itself.

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?

Usage is only implied: enumerate repos when you need repo identifiers. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no mention of when to prefer orca_project_list or orca_worktree_list, which are the most likely confusions given the sibling set.

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