laserfiche_repository_list

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool never raises and never returns mode:"error", explains the fallback behavior when the /Repositories endpoint is disabled, and describes what healthy builds return. This goes well beyond a minimal listing tool description.

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 three focused sentences: one states the purpose, one covers error/fallback behavior, and one covers healthy response. Every sentence adds information that matters for correct invocation, with no filler or repetition.

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 there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is complete: it explains the tool's scope, the unusual fallback scenario, and the healthy return behavior. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists repositories reachable by the account. It also clearly differentiates from all sibling tools, which target entries, folders, fields, documents, or tasks rather than repositories. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 makes the basic use case obvious—list repositories—but does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over siblings or provide any exclusions. The fallback caveat is behavior-related, not usage guidance. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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