doc_list_repos

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

The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates the tool is read-only. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether the list is ordered, paginated, or the format of returned identifiers. Since annotations cover read-only safety, the description provides minimal extra value.

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 of 6 words with no extraneous content. 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?

Given the tool has no parameters or output schema, the description is minimal but adequate to convey the core function. However, it does not describe what information is returned (e.g., repository names, IDs), leaving some uncertainty about the output. For a simple listing tool, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already provides complete structural information. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly adds no parameter semantics, which 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 'List all indexed documentation repositories' uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource 'indexed documentation repositories'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_docs' or 'get_doc', which operate on documents rather than repositories.

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 when an agent needs to know which documentation repositories are indexed. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use 'get_index_overview' or 'list_docs' instead.

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