list_repos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the output includes sync status and doc counts—useful context about the return shape—but says nothing about permissions, pagination, ordering, or whether the result set is bounded. For a read-only listing tool this is some value, but not rich behavioral context.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that covers the action, resource, and returned information without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 repository-listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the resource and two returned fields. However, it omits that results can be filtered by status, gives no sense of pagination or result limits, and says 'all' without qualification, leaving a few gaps an agent must resolve by inspecting the schema.

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 single optional status enum with its 'Filter by status' description is fully documented in the schema. The tool description adds nothing about filtering—indeed it says 'List all', which is slightly at odds with the existence of a filter—so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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') and resource ('tracked repos') and even notes the returned fields ('sync status and doc counts'). It does not explicitly differentiate from any sibling tool, but no sibling appears to list repos, so the purpose is clear. The one missing piece for a 5 is an explicit contrast with alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_repo_home or search_repo_docs. The intended usage is only implied by the verb 'List' and the scope 'tracked repos'.

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