list_repositories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. The phrase 'List backup repository IDs' implies a read-only operation, but there is no disclosure of permissions, error conditions, return format, or pagination behavior. This is minimal behavioral context.

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 extremely terse: one sentence plus an Args line. It avoids redundancy and gets straight to the point, with no filler or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, output schema exists), but the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral details, such as how to interpret results or what errors might occur. Given the presence of sibling tools and no annotations, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps in context.

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 no description for the 'storage' parameter, and the description only adds 'Storage name.' This barely adds meaning beyond the parameter's title and does not clarify what a valid storage name refers to or how it affects the listing. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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: 'List backup repository IDs that exist in a storage.' This is a specific verb (List) with a concrete resource (backup repository IDs) and scope (in a storage), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like create_repository or delete_repository.

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 usage through the mandatory 'storage' parameter but does not explicitly discuss when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_schedule_status or lookup_storage. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided, leaving the context implicit.

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