repo_list_repos_by_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Retrieve a list' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by skip/top parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the project doesn't exist. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, zero waste. Every word earns its place by clearly stating the tool's function without redundancy or fluff.

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 4 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination, error handling) and output details. For a list-retrieval tool, this is the bare minimum.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format of project ID/name or how repoNameFilter matching works). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('list of repositories'), specifying it's for a given project. It distinguishes from some siblings like repo_get_repo_by_name_or_id (single repo) and repo_list_branches_by_repo (branches not repos), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all repo_list_* tools (e.g., repo_list_pull_requests_by_project is similar but for pull requests).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like repo_get_repo_by_name_or_id (for single repos) or repo_list_pull_requests_by_project (for pull requests in projects). The description implies usage for listing repositories in a project but lacks explicit when/when-not statements or prerequisite context.

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