List abapGit Repositories

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

The description minimally adds 'through the shared abapGit capability' beyond the annotations, which already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. No contradictions, but little additional disclosure.

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 sentence, which is concise but excessively brief. It lacks valuable information that could be added without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks context about pagination, scope, or relation to other git tools. It is insufficient for agents to understand the full behavior of the 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain parameters but does not. It omits any details about systemId, limit, or startIndex, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them.

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 action 'List abapGit Repositories', which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like sap.git.inspect, which might also deal with repositories.

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, such as sap.git.inspect or sap.git.check. No context for prerequisites or exclusions is given.

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