listRepos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Discover' reasonably implies a read-only operation, and the mention of NIP-34 adds useful protocol context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is safe, nor does it mention anything about rate limits, side effects, or return behaviors, so it is minimally adequate.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant information. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple list/discovery tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not mention the default limit, the optional nature of relays, or how this relates to other discovery tools, but the schema covers the parameter details. The description could be richer in explaining what the agent should expect when invoking it.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a slight nuance by summarizing that filtering is by 'pubkey or search term,' which helps convey the purpose of two parameters, but it does not compensate fully for the lack of any additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb 'Discover' and clearly identifies the resource ('repositories from Nostr relays (NIP-34)') and the filtering capability. It is clear in its intent but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like searchRepos or exploreRepos, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as searchRepos, exploreRepos, or myRepos. It simply states what it does without any context on preferred use cases or exclusions, offering no help in tool selection.

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