repositories_list

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 says nothing about pagination (despite a `limit` parameter), authentication requirements, read-only nature, or what subset of repositories is returned. The verb 'List' suggests read-only but does not cover other behavioral nuances.

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, front-loaded sentence that gets straight to the point. It contains no filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and easy to scan.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is minimal for a tool with three parameters, no annotations, and zero schema coverage. It lacks guidance on when to use it, what `limit` and `include` control, and any behavioral caveats. This is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the role of `scm_provider_id` ('for an SCM provider'), but leaves `limit` and `include` unexplained. The parameter names are partially self-explanatory, but `include` remains ambiguous without additional context.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('Git repositories'), and the scope ('for an SCM provider'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pull_requests_list and git_references_list.

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 that this tool is used to list repositories for a given SCM provider, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or mention prerequisites like obtaining an SCM provider ID first.

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