list_repertoires

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It states a listing operation, which implicitly indicates non-destructive read-only behavior, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, pagination, or whether it returns all repertoires. The presence of an output schema covers return structure, but the description itself adds limited context beyond the stated 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, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('List') and the resource ('En Croissant repertoire files'). Every word contributes to the meaning, and there is no redundant or extraneous 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's simplicity (0 params), the presence of an output schema, and a clear one-sentence description that states both the action and the output content, the description is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool. It adequately differentiates from sibling tools by mentioning 'En Croissant repertoire' specifically, which distinguishes it from generic list operations.

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?

With zero parameters in the input schema, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none, and the schema already covers the absence of inputs. No additional parameter meaning is required.

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 the specific verb 'List' and resource 'En Croissant repertoire files', and specifies what information is returned ('which colour each trains'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_databases and read_repertoire by narrowing the scope to repertoire files and their associated colours.

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 implies usage when one needs an overview of all repertoire files and their colours, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or contexts where this tool should be preferred. No exclusions or contrasts with sibling tools are provided, so guidance is only implied rather than clearly stated.

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