repo_repository

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: an ADO_ALLOWED_REPOSITORIES allow-list silently restricts both results and access, which an agent must know before interpreting an empty list as 'no repositories exist.'

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the allow-list caveat, then the prerequisite. Every sentence carries distinct information and none of it is padding.

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 read-only lookup/list with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers scope, accepted identifier forms, and the access restriction. It could mention returns (id/name/URL) or that paging uses skip, but the schema's nextSkip note largely covers pagination, leaving only a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents top, skip, project, and repository. The description repeats that 'names and IDs are accepted,' which is largely redundant with the schema's 'Project name or ID' phrasing, and adds nothing about the action enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get or list Git repositories') and the scope ('in an Azure DevOps Server project'), with the get-vs-list duality matching the action enum. The resource is unambiguous against siblings like repo_branch and repo_pull_request, which operate on entirely different entities.

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?

Provides an explicit prerequisite: 'Use server_info/list_projects first if the project is unknown.' This is clear context for when the caller lacks a project identifier, but it offers no exclusions or alternatives among the sibling repo tools for cases like resolving a branch or PR.

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