myRepos

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool reads from .nostr-keys.json, which is useful context, but does not clarify read-only nature, error scenarios, or output format. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but minimal.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a specific detail about the identity source. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema), but the description still leaves a major gap: the 'relays' parameter is unexplained, and no return value or output format is described. It provides enough for a basic understanding but is incomplete for effective invocation.

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 one optional parameter 'relays' with 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description does not mention or explain it at all. The description fails to compensate for this gap, leaving the parameter's purpose and behavior completely undocumented.

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 tool lists repositories owned by the current user, with a specific source file (.nostr-keys.json). It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (repositories), and the owner scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like listRepos.

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 clear context: this is for the current user's own repositories, sourced from local Nostr credentials. It implies a use case but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of similar tools like listRepos, nor does it mention exclusions.

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