git_list_remotes

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the meaningful behavioral guarantee that URLs are not exposed, which is a privacy-relevant detail beyond the annotations. This adds useful context for an agent.

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, tightly crafted sentence. It front-loads the action and resource while adding an important constraint without any wasted words.

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 read-only list tool with one thoroughly documented parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essentials. It could be more explicit about usage versus sibling tools, but that gap is minor given the overall simplicity and annotations.

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 fully documents repositoryId as 'ID returned by git_list_repositories', giving 100% coverage. The description does not mention parameters, so it adds no extra value beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool lists configured remote names and explicitly excludes URLs, distinguishing it from siblings like git_list_remote_refs (which lists refs) and git_list_repositories (which lists repositories). The verb 'list' and resource 'remote names' are specific and unambiguous.

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 for retrieving remote names but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or provide when/when-not criteria. The tool's name and description make the use case fairly obvious, yet no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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