cat_repositories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('get list') but doesn't describe what the list contains, format, pagination, permissions required, rate limits, or side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool behaves.

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, efficient phrase ('获取快照仓库列表') that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the description earns its place by conveying essential 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 complexity (a list operation with no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the list output looks like, any filtering or sorting options, or behavioral traits. For a tool in a rich ecosystem with many siblings, more context is needed to help the agent use it correctly.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't contradict or add unnecessary details.

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 '获取快照仓库列表' (Get snapshot repository list) states the verb ('get') and resource ('snapshot repository list'), making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'snapshot_repo_get' or 'cat_snapshots', which also deal with snapshots/repositories. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

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. With many sibling tools related to snapshots and repositories (e.g., 'snapshot_repo_get', 'snapshot_repo_create', 'cat_snapshots'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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