hacs_list_hacs_repositories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It correctly indicates the tool is a read-only listing operation with no side effects, but does not mention any rate limits, permissions, or pagination behavior. Adequate but minimal.

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, concise sentence of 15 words with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action and immediately provides the optional filter details.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It covers the essential functionality of listing with filter. However, it lacks information on pagination, sorting, or default behavior, which could be useful for a list 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the category parameter, but the description compensates by listing the valid values (integration, plugin, theme, template, appdaemon, python_script). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema definition.

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 'List HACS repositories' with an optional category filter, providing a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like hacs_get_hacs_repository (single repo) and hacs_list_hacs_critical_updates (subset).

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 explains when to use the tool (listing repos with optional filter) but does not provide guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings. No explicit when-to-use or exclusions.

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