repository_list

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 only says 'List working repositories' and gives no detail on what qualifies as 'working', whether the call is read-only, how the optional parameters affect the result, or what kind of output to expect. This is a notable transparency gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It states the action and the purpose in minimal space, earning every word.

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 has three optional parameters and no annotations, and the description does not explain their roles, scope, or filtering behavior. While an output schema exists, the definition is still incomplete for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool or interpret 'working repositories'.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (env_file, workspace_path, government_repository_path). The parameter names give some hint, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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 verb ('List') and the resource ('working repositories'), and adds the specific purpose of enabling an agent to explicitly select a repository_path. This distinguishes it from siblings like repository_commit or repository_describe, which operate on an already-selected 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 a clear usage context: call this tool before selecting a repository_path. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the stated purpose provides enough guidance for a straightforward list operation.

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