list_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 says 'Get' and mentions repository management, but omits critical behavioral details: pagination (page/perPage), required organizationId scoping, archived filtering, and return structure. The phrase 'my repositories' is potentially misleading because the operation is scoped to an organization, not necessarily the current user's personal repos.

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 short and well-front-loaded with the main action, followed by a clarifying parenthetical about Repository vs Project. The 'Use Case' line is somewhat redundant with the first sentence but adds a practical angle. Compared to many verbose descriptions, it earns its 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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what fields are returned, how pagination works, that organizationId is required, or how search/archived filters behave. The vague 'my repositories' leaves too much to inference; a fuller description of scope and result shape is needed.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already explains, but it also does not contradict or mislead about parameters.

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 opens with 'Get the CodeUp Repository List', which clearly specifies the verb (get) and resource (repository list). It also distinguishes Repository from Project, differentiating it from sibling project-oriented tools. The use case 'View my repositories' reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

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 'Use Case: View my repositories' implies when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like get_repository or list_branches. No exclusions or conditions are provided, so it remains at the level of implied usage.

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