List push mirrors

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation it discloses the auth prerequisite (write mode required) and reconciles the apparent paradox ('though it changes nothing'), plus a security guarantee that secrets are never returned. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs before calling.

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?

A single dense block with the resource and scope first, the field inventory second, and the usage trigger last. Every clause carries information; nothing is 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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (remote_name, remote_address, sync interval, sync-on-commit, last sync time and error). With auth requirements and secret handling also covered, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds marginal value by clarifying that owner/repo identify the repository whose mirror config is scoped to admin, and by linking remote_name to delete_push_mirror. It doesn't add format/syntax details beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list push mirrors) scoped to a repository (owner/repo), and explicitly ties the result fields to the sibling that consumes them (remote_name for delete_push_mirror). An agent can distinguish it from add_push_mirror, delete_push_mirror, and sync_push_mirrors without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it after sync_push_mirrors to see whether the push worked,' and names the prerequisite (write mode) up front. It also implicitly excludes the read-only cases by noting mirror config is repo-admin-scoped.

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