repo_list

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral information, and 'Leitura' does state that this is a read operation. It does not disclose auth requirements, result shape, or whether the default project applies when omitted, though the schema partially covers the default.

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 entire description is two short sentences with no filler; purpose and safety trait are front-loaded. Every word contributes.

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 and full schema coverage for its only parameter, the description covers the core use case completely. It could be improved by an explicit note about which sibling to use for projects or write operations, but those are inferable.

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 is already fully described in the schema, including the default and the allowlist condition, so the description does not need to add parameter detail. It adds no extra semantic value beyond 'do projeto', consistent with the high schema coverage baseline.

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 exact operation ('Lista'), the resource ('repositórios'), and the scope ('do projeto'), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like project_list and pr_list. The explicit read-only label reinforces its role.

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 intended use is implied: call it to read a project's repositories. It names no alternatives or exclusion criteria, so the agent must infer when to choose this over project_list or pr_list.

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