list_sca_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 disclosure. It describes the output ('aggregated dependency inventory information' and 'which repositories have been analyzed for dependencies'), which is useful, but it doesn't cover other behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or how results are formatted (e.g., pagination). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 and concise, consisting of two short sentences that directly state the tool's function. Every sentence adds value: the first specifies the action and output, and the second clarifies the scope. There is no wasted wording, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple listing tool. It explains what the tool does and the type of information returned. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., structure, fields) and behavioral context (e.g., safety, limits), which would be helpful for an AI agent to use it effectively, especially in a server with many sibling tools.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose. Since there are no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is justified, as the description doesn't have to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 purpose: 'List repositories with their aggregated dependency inventory information' and 'Shows which repositories have been analyzed for dependencies.' This specifies the verb ('list'), resource ('repositories'), and scope ('dependency inventory information'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_repositories', which might serve a similar purpose without the dependency focus, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_repositories' or 'list_scans', which could be related. Without such information, users might struggle to choose the right tool in this server's context.

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