list_repositories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context like fuzzy matching for 'search', advanced query syntax examples for 'query', and default/max values for 'limit'. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with search/list functionality.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, and each sentence adds value. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 4 parameters and search functionality, though the 'query' examples could be slightly more concise. The purpose statement is front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 tool's complexity (search/list with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, or authentication. The return value description ('List of repositories with basic info') is vague without an output schema, leaving uncertainty about what 'basic info' includes.

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 description provides extensive parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains optional filtering with 'project_key', details fuzzy matching for 'search', gives multiple examples for 'query' syntax, and specifies default and maximum values for 'limit'. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 the tool's purpose as 'List and search repositories in the workspace,' which includes both listing and searching functionality. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_repository' (singular) and 'list_projects' (different resource), but could be more explicit about how it differs from other list/search tools like 'list_pull_requests' or 'list_branches'.

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 through parameter explanations (e.g., 'search' for fuzzy matching, 'query' for advanced syntax), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing workspace access, or compare it to similar tools like 'list_projects' or 'get_repository' for specific use cases.

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