lattice_list_registry_repositories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It states 'List repositories', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention side effects, error conditions (e.g., invalid registry ID), or whether the list is paginated. This is minimally adequate for a simple list tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It contains no filler, no repetition, and efficiently communicates the key action and outcome.

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 (one required parameter, no output schema), the description provides a sufficient overview. However, it could be slightly more complete by mentioning that the result lists repository names or includes details like image tags. Nonetheless, it adequately covers the core functionality.

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 is one parameter (id) with schema description 'Registry ID'. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter; the description does not elaborate on its format or role, maintaining a baseline score of 3.

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 available in a registry — what images exist to deploy', using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('repositories in a registry'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like lattice_list_registries (lists registries) and lattice_list_registry_tags (lists tags), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given its straightforward nature, usage is implied (list repositories of a registry), but there is no mention of exclusions or conditions, such as requiring a valid registry ID or noting that the registry must exist.

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