list_repositories

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists all repositories with field filtering, default fields returned, and that include_fields='all' gets complete data. The warning about many results and large metadata is helpful.

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 short and to the point, with a clear warning line and explanation of field filtering. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 only two parameters, the description covers the purpose, usage constraints, parameter semantics, and behavior. No output schema is needed as return values are self-explanatory. The agent has all necessary information to use the tool 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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It explains that per_page controls page size and defaults to 5, and that include_fields allows 'all' or comma-separated fields to control output. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 all repositories' and mentions 'field filtering', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_repository (for a single repo) and other list_* tools for different entities. The verb 'list' and resource 'repositories' are specific.

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 warns about context overflow and recommends per_page=5 max, and suggests considering specific repo searches. It also explains field filtering. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives to the same resource, but the sibling list provides context.

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