List Git repositories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it specifies what is listed (configured workspace folders) and the exact condition checked (whether each is an available Git repository root). This helps the agent understand the tool's scope and output semantics.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 tool with strong annotations and an output schema present, the description is complete. It communicates what is returned (workspace folders and repo-root status) without needing to detail the output format, which is covered by the output 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?

With zero parameters, the description correctly avoids parameter details. The schema coverage is 100% (fully described by the empty schema), so the baseline of 4 applies. No additional parameter clarification is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('configured workspace folders') and states the output criterion ('whether each is an available Git repository root'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_list_refs or git_list_remotes, which list refs/remotes rather than workspace folders.

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: it is for inspecting workspace folders to see which are repo roots. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but not explicit.

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