list_tracked_repos

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 states what the tool does but fails to describe key traits: whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the output format looks like (though an output schema exists), or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (0 parameters, output schema provided), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about what 'tracked repos' means or how this fits with sibling tools, and with no annotations, it misses behavioral details. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but overall completeness is limited.

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 has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. With no parameters to document, a baseline score of 4 is warranted as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('tracked repos'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'discover_repos' or 'register_repo' by specifying 'tracked' repos, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The description avoids tautology by not merely restating the name.

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 like 'discover_repos' or 'sync_status'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone. This is a significant gap for a tool with many siblings.

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