ado_git_list_repos

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return-value shape, which is useful, but it does not disclose potential behavioral traits such as pagination, size limits, or authentication needs. No contradictions exist.

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 composed of two trimmed sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second covers return context and a downstream pointer. Every word adds value, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotation, this description is sufficient. It states the input parameter, what will be returned (ID, name, default branch, size), and why the output is useful (use the ID in other tools), so an agent can call it correctly without missing critical information.

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 description for the sole parameter 'project' is 'Project to list repositories from' and schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already documented. The tool's description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'Git repositories in an Azure DevOps project' and explicitly lists the returned fields (ID, name, default branch, size). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle PRs, work items, or pipelines without needing to open any schemas.

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?

No explicit 'use instead of' is present, but there is no competing tool for listing repositories among the siblings. The sentence 'Use the repository ID in other git tools (PRs, search)' gives useful context for when to call this tool, so agents are not left without a reason to use it.

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