ecp_git_list_repos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden, and it does signal that this is a read-oriented browsing operation that depends on an existing provider connection. It doesn't disclose behavior like pagination, result ordering, or the absence of filtering, but for a simple browse tool this is adequate.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the key scoping information and purpose are front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning, making it an efficiently structured description.

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 list/browse tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps: it doesn't explain that provider must correspond to an already-connected provider or how page/search affect results. An agent can call the tool correctly using the schema, but not with full confidence about behavior.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining provider, page, and search, but it does not address any of them. The only indirect hint is 'connected git provider', which loosely relates to the provider parameter; page and search are left entirely to inference from their names.

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 names a specific verb ('Browse') and resource ('repos available via a connected git provider'), and adds the purpose 'for picking one to deploy from'. It is clearly distinct from sibling git tools like list_providers and list_connections, though it does not explicitly call them out.

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 parenthetical 'for picking one to deploy from' provides a clear use case for when this tool should be selected. It does not, however, explicitly exclude alternatives or explain when list_connections/list_providers would be more appropriate.

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