hacs_list_hacs_repositories

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

The description implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but no annotations are provided to confirm. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any potential impacts. For a list operation, the description is minimally adequate but lacks detail beyond what is obvious.

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 that front-loads the main action (list repositories) and includes the optional filter parameter. Every part is relevant and there is no waste.

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 existence of an output schema (which presumably explains the return format) and the tool's simplicity, the description is largely complete. It could optionally mention pagination or limitations (e.g., number of results), but is adequate for its purpose.

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 schema has zero description coverage, but the description explicitly lists the valid category values, adding significant meaning beyond the schema (which only specifies string or null). However, it does not specify the exact format or case sensitivity.

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 that the tool lists HACS repositories with an optional category filter, and lists the valid categories (integration, plugin, theme, template, appdaemon, python_script). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hacs_get_hacs_repository (single repository) and hacs_list_hacs_critical_updates (critical updates only).

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 implies usage for listing repositories with or without a category filter, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., hacs_get_hacs_repository for a specific repo) or when not to use it. No exclusions or guidance on prerequisites are provided.

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