list_space_repositories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses the key non-obvious trait: output is compact by default and branches/detailed metadata are opt-in. It omits any mention of permissions or side effects, but as a 'list' operation those are largely self-evident.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the key output-shape caveat. No wasted text.

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 two-flag list tool without an output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: what is listed and what is omitted by default. A bit more on parameter names/defaults would make it fully complete.

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. It explains that branches and detailed metadata are omitted unless requested, which maps loosely onto include_branches and include_details, but it never names the parameters or states their defaults explicitly.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List compact repositories and project names for this MemoRepo space.' Clear what is returned, though it does not distinguish itself from sibling list_projects or snapshot tools.

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 line 'Branches and detailed metadata are omitted unless explicitly requested' implies when to enable the optional flags, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over list_projects or list_snapshot_files. Usage is only implied.

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