Получение списка репозиториев VCS провайдера

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

The description says 'gets list' which implies a read-only operation, but the annotations state readOnlyHint=false. This is a direct contradiction; the description does not clarify any potential side effects or why it is not read-only.

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 with no redundant information. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward list operation, though it adds little beyond the title.

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 simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core function but omits potential details like pagination, ordering, or return format. The lack of behavioral context combined with the annotation contradiction leaves some gaps.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter provider_id has an adequate description. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('gets') plus resource ('list of VCS provider repositories') and the key qualifier 'by ID', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vcs_providers or get_vcs_provider_by_repository_url.

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 when to use it (when you have a provider ID and need its repositories) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It lacks any exclusions or comparisons with similar tools.

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