gitea_list_org_repos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'List' implies read-only behavior, there is no disclosure about pagination behavior (despite page/limit params), rate limiting, error handling for non-existent orgs, or the 'site' parameter's role in targeting different Gitea instances.

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 sentence, achieving brevity, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise that doesn't aid comprehension. The extreme brevity comes at the cost of necessary operational context given the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

With 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the 'site' parameter (critical for multi-instance deployments), pagination defaults, or return value structure expected from a listing operation.

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 coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate, but it fails to explain critical parameters like 'site' (Gitea instance URL?), 'org' format, or the pagination controls (page/limit). Only 'organization' is implicitly referenced, leaving three of four parameters undocumented.

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 the core action (List) and resource (repositories of an organization) clearly. However, it only implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'gitea_list_user_repos' by mentioning 'organization' rather than explicitly contrasting the use cases.

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 guidance provided on when to use this versus 'gitea_list_repositories' or 'gitea_list_user_repos'. No mention of prerequisites like authentication requirements or visibility constraints for private orgs.

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