repository_remotes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses the redaction behavior, which is a meaningful safety-relevant trait beyond a simple 'list' operation. It does not mention error behavior for invalid paths or whether the command requires network access, but the redaction disclosure is a strong positive signal.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds the critical redaction qualifier. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of the tool 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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. The redaction behavior is disclosed, and the output schema presumably documents the return shape. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on what happens when repository_path is invalid or not a Git repository, but this is not critical for a listing tool.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter. The description names the resource ('local Git remotes') but does not explicitly explain that repository_path is the path to the local repository whose remotes should be listed. However, with only one parameter and a clear tool name, the meaning is reasonably inferable.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('local Git remotes') and adds a distinctive behavioral qualifier ('redacting credential-bearing URL components'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like remote_configure, repository_clone, and repository_fetch, which involve different operations on remotes.

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 read-only inspection use case for local remotes, which is clear enough to differentiate from configuration or network operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like remote_configure or repository_status, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., must be inside a valid repository).

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