List accessible repositories

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: result ordering, pagination fields, the ability to choose markdown or JSON output, and the specific 403 error condition for missing read:user scope. This fully discloses observable behavior for a list operation.

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 tightly organized: purpose first, then parameters, return shape, usage scenario, and error condition. Every section earns its place; the parameter list briefly restates schema names but does not bloat the entry. It is compact yet informative.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by providing a precise return structure with all key fields. It also includes error behavior, parameter names, and the intended discovery use case. For a simple, optional-parameter list tool, nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already defines page, limit, and response_format with defaults, ranges, and descriptions. The description merely lists the parameter names without adding extra syntactic or semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 ('Lists'), a clear resource ('repositories the token can reach'), and an ordering detail ('most recently updated first'). The stated purpose distinctly separates it from sibling tools like forgejo_list_issues, forgejo_list_branches, or forgejo_list_commits. The description even ties the tool to a concrete discovery role: finding owner/repo values for other tools.

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?

Provides an explicit use case: 'Use it to discover the owner/repo values to pass to the other tools when they are unknown.' This gives clear context for when to call the tool. It does not name specific alternatives or give explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so it misses the full exclusionary guidance needed for a 5.

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