registry_list_repos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully cover behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether authentication is required, whether the operation is read-only, rate limits, pagination behavior, or side effects. The 'limit' parameter suggests pagination but is not explained.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and uses a structured list for parameters. While slightly verbose with the 'Args:' header, each line is concise. It earns a 4 for being well-organized and efficient.

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 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains parameters but does not describe the return value (what is listed?), error conditions, prerequisites, or authentication flow. The 'gateway_id' parameter hints at a site context but is not elaborated.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description includes a clear explanation for each parameter (e.g., 'Registry backend — "harbor", "ecr", or "gar".'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type information. A score of 4 is warranted because all parameters are briefly described.

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 'List repositories in a container registry (Harbor, ECR, or Google Artifact Registry).' This is a specific verb+resource combination, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like registry_list_tags and registry_check_image which have different purposes.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when-not-to-use or provide comparison with sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the list of parameters.

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