code-fundi-list-repos

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a safe read operation. The description adds that only 'indexed' repositories are returned and mentions supported filters, but does not disclose additional behavioral details like rate limits, auth requirements, or pagination specifics beyond the schema. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 concise, with two sentences: the first states the core purpose clearly, and the second lists key features. No unnecessary words or repetition of schema details, making it highly efficient.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, account scope, indexing, pagination, filtering, and search. It is complete enough for an agent to know when to use it, though it does not mention ordering parameters, which are already documented in the schema.

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?

All 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The description only summarizes the capabilities (pagination, scope filtering, name search) without adding deeper semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists all indexed repositories in the user's Code-Fundi account, using a specific verb (list) and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list-public-repos by emphasizing 'indexed' and account scoping, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for retrieving repositories from your account, with filtering options. It does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like list-public-repos or search, but the scope is well-defined as 'all indexed repositories,' which implies typical usage for listing repos.

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