memory_git_list

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

The description does not add behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). Since annotations fully cover the safety profile, the description's lack of additional detail is acceptable; it neither contradicts nor enhances transparency.

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 of only 6 words, effectively communicating the tool's action and scope with zero wasted verbiage. It is appropriately front-loaded and highly efficient.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient information for an AI agent to correctly select and invoke the tool. No additional detail is required to understand the tool's function.

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 single optional parameter 'space_id' is fully described in the input schema ('Filter by space UUID (optional)'), and the tool description adds no further semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, the description is neither necessary nor deficient.

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 'List all connected GitHub repositories' uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('connected GitHub repositories'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It effectively distinguishes this tool from other siblings like memory_git_activate or memory_list_items.

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 implicitly conveys that this tool is for listing connected GitHub repositories, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., memory_list_items for other entities) or when not to use it. Usage context is implied but not elaborated.

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