doc_list_repos

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: results are limited to the active storage_path, and an empty list is a definitive signal that nothing is indexed there. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states the core action, the second gives usage guidance, and the third clarifies scoping. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it defines what is returned, how to use the tool as a prerequisite, and how to interpret an empty result. No critical behavioral or return-value information is missing.

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 default baseline of 4 applies. The description adds useful output semantics by stating that the repo identifier and storage location are returned, which is sufficient since the schema has no parameters to document.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List every indexed documentation repo with its identifier and storage location.' It clearly distinguishes the tool as the entry point for discovering indexed repos, which differentiates it from siblings like list_repo_groups or get_index_overview.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Call it first' to determine whether docs are indexed and to get the repo id needed by other tools. It also notes the storage_path scoping and the meaning of an empty list, though it does not name specific alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions.

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