coolify_list_repositories

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already establish this as a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds that pagination and search are supported, which is useful behavioral detail, but it doesn't disclose other traits like rate limits or return format.

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 concise, using two short sentences that front-load the primary purpose and mention key features. Every word contributes.

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?

For a straightforward list operation, the description is adequate: it specifies the resource type and the filter scope. Combined with the detailed schema and annotations, the context is sufficient, though no output schema exists to detail the return shape.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, giving 100% coverage. The description's mention of pagination and search reinforces the purpose of the page, limit, and search parameters, but adds limited new meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool's function: listing repositories accessible via a GitHub App. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_branches or list_github_apps by specifying the GitHub App scope.

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 clear context for when to use the tool—when you need repositories accessible through a specific GitHub App. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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