lgh_list

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

The description reinforces the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature indicated by annotations, adding specific details like 'Reads only the local registry' and 'no network access.' It also states the return format (JSON array) and behavior when nothing is registered, making the tool's behavior transparent.

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 concise and well-structured, covering purpose, output details, and usage guidance in a few sentences without redundancy or unnecessary fluff.

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 listing tool, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, what it returns, when to use it, and the local-only scope. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit mention of 'Returns a JSON array,' making the tool self-explanatory.

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 provides a single optional parameter 'filter' with a clear description ('Optional substring filter applied to repository name or source path (case-insensitive)'). However, the tool description itself does not mention the parameter or add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 function: listing every Git repository registered with the LGH local. It specifies the exact fields returned (name, source_path, bare_path, clone_url, created_at) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like lgh_add, lgh_remove, and lgh_log, which perform different operations.

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 provides explicit use cases: discovering the clone_url of an existing backup or finding the exact registered name for lgh_remove. It also notes that the operation reads only the local registry with no network access, clarifying appropriate scenarios and contrasting with potential remote-oriented tools.

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