List repositories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose authorization scope ('token has access to') and the output purpose ('repo ids usable with the other tools'), but it does not mention the default active-only behavior (schema covers that), pagination, error handling, or rate limits. This is a moderate disclosure, comparable to a baseline where the tool's behavior is partially 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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the essential verb-object, and the second sentence adds value by stating the return value's utility. No wasted words, and it avoids repeating schema information.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose, access scope, and return value relevance. It could have been more complete by stating default behavior (active-only) or potential pagination, but the schema fills the parameter gap, making the description adequately complete for typical use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no specific parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it does not explain the 'all' boolean or the 'instance' string beyond what the schema already states. The mention of 'token access' and 'repo ids' provides context but does not enrich parameter semantics.

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 opens with 'Lists repositories the token has access to on a Woodpecker instance', which clearly states the verb (Lists), resource (repositories), and scope (token access, instance). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_pipelines and get_pipeline by focusing on repositories and mentioning that it returns repo IDs usable with other tools.

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 when to use the tool: when you need repo IDs to pass to other tools ('Returns repo ids usable with the other tools'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context of being the repository-list tool among pipeline/log tools provides sufficient guidance. An explicit reference to 'use this before get_pipeline or get_step_logs' would have earned a 5.

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