list_repos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool lists repos and freshness state, with no mention of side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'freshness state' entails. This is insufficient for a transparent tool definition.

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 extremely concise—one sentence with clear verb and resource. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, earning every word's place.

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's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. However, it could benefit from clarifying 'freshness state' (e.g., last indexed time) or output structure, but the output schema likely covers that. For a list tool, this suffices.

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?

There are no parameters, so the input schema is trivially covered. Per guidelines, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 lists indexed repos and their freshness state. The verb 'list' and resource 'indexed repos' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_symbol' (lookup a symbol), 'reindex' (trigger indexing), and 'search_code' (search within code), as listing repos is a distinct operation.

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. Sibling tools exist (get_symbol, reindex, search_code) but no comparative context is given, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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