Select Repositories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by mentioning 'retrieval evidence scores' and the restricted candidate list, but it does not describe the output format, potential no-match behavior, or whether any side effects occur. This is a moderate disclosure for a selection 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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every phrase adds value: the candidate list and scoring method are both mentioned. This is appropriately concise with no filler.

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?

The description covers the essential purpose and scope but omits practical details like the return format or behavior when no repositories match. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, these details would be helpful for an agent to know what to expect, leaving the description moderately 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 coverage is 100% and every parameter has a description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds overall context but does not enrich individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as the meaning of max_repos or the optional repos subset.

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 uses the specific verb 'select' and names the resource ('repositories from REFERENCE_REPOS'), explicitly listing the allowed candidates (octocat/Hello-World, facebook/react). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_code or search_implementation, which focus on searching within code rather than selecting from a fixed repository set.

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 implies the tool is for choosing repositories given a document/query, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. No sibling tool is referenced as a fallback, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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