get_active_repositories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states what the tool does but does not disclose behavioral traits such as response format, permission requirements, or any side effects. For a data retrieval tool, more transparency on output structure is needed.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no superfluous information. Every sentence is necessary.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return value. It states 'shows which repos are actively running workflows' but does not specify the format (e.g., list of repo names or objects). With 2 optional parameters and a simple purpose, it is somewhat incomplete but not critically lacking.

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 baseline score is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it simply reiterates 'in a period' which aligns with the start_date and end_date parameters.

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 'Get' and the resource 'repositories with CI activity in a period'. It distinguishes this tool from numerous sibling 'get_' tools by focusing on active repositories with workflow runs.

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 for identifying actively running repositories but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the 31 sibling tools.

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