List Repositories

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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and bounded to the configured world. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations by revealing that the data comes from repolens.yaml and that the response includes aliases, paths, and git branch information.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core behavior, the second adds the return-value detail, and the Args section is minimal. Every component earns its place, and there is no fluff 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?

For a simple listing tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it names the data source, the returned fields, and the only parameter. The annotations cover behavioral safety, so nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 describes the single 'response_format' parameter fully with an enum and a default of 'markdown', giving 100% schema coverage. The description's Args section largely repeats this information, adding no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 precise action ('List all configured repositories') and a clear resource, and it immediately frames the purpose as enabling cross-repository search. The sibling tools are all find_* operations over code symbols, so 'list repositories' is distinguishable without ambiguity.

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 phrase 'available for cross-repository search' gives clear context for when an agent would call this tool: to discover the repository scope before searching. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is evident and the sibling distinction does not require further clarification.

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