repository_files

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the word 'authorized', hinting at permission-scoped results, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite having limit/offset parameters.

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 short sentence with no wasted words and the core action front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing information noted elsewhere.

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 3-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation anywhere, the description is too thin. It omits what 'authorized' means, the return shape, and pagination behavior, so an agent lacks the context to call it correctly.

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% for all three parameters (limit, offset, prefix), and the description mentions none of them. There is no explanation of what 'prefix' filters, or how limit/offset paginate, so the agent cannot use the parameters correctly from this text.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('source paths and IDs'), so the agent knows this returns a collection of paths/identifiers. It does not differentiate from siblings like read_project_source or repository_status, leaving the boundary between listing and reading/fetching ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_project_source or repository_status, nor any stated precondition. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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