git_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists repos, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'can see' entails (e.g., local vs. remote repos). The description is too vague to fully inform the agent about behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and scope, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

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 has no parameters, an output schema exists, and no annotations are provided, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., how 'can see' is defined) and doesn't leverage the output schema to clarify return values. For a simple list tool, it's functional but could be more informative about the output or constraints.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented because none exist. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no inputs are required by not mentioning any. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as the description doesn't mislead about inputs.

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 clearly states the action ('List all git repos') and the scope ('that git-standup can see'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'git_standup', which appears to be a related but distinct functionality. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 provides minimal guidance by implying usage when needing to list repos visible to git-standup, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus the sibling 'git_standup' or any alternatives. There's no explicit context, exclusions, or prerequisites mentioned, leaving the agent with little guidance on appropriate usage scenarios.

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