oss_repo_list

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about ordering, whether closed repos are excluded, scoping to a session, or what the listing contains. 'Opened' hints at a read-only enumeration but that is inferred, not stated.

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?

One short phrase with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise-and-complete. There is nothing front-loaded beyond the bare resource name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey what the listing returns (e.g., repository identifiers, paths, or open handles), and it does not. For a tool with no annotations and no return-value documentation, an agent lacks the information needed to use the result 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The empty schema is consistent with the description's framing of a simple listing call.

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 Korean description '열어 둔 프로젝트 목록' translates to a list of opened projects, which identifies the resource but uses a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource. It does not distinguish itself from oss_repo_status or oss_repo_open, so an agent must infer that this enumerates currently open repositories.

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 statement of when to call this versus oss_repo_status or oss_repo_open; the 'open projects' wording only implies a listing context. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are named.

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