List Repositories

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable context: pagination defaults (page_size=30, max_pages=1) and a warning for over 10 pages, which exceeds annotation scope.

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 well-structured with a clear initial statement, organized Args section, Returns, and a Note. No filler; every sentence adds value.

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 output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on input and behavior. It covers pagination limits, optional filters, and warning conditions. Could mention that it lists only repositories the user has access to, but overall is complete.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates with clear, specific docstrings for each parameter: workspace defaults, name partial matching, page_size default, max_pages default and limit. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/default.

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 action (list) and resource (repositories), with scope (in workspace) and pagination. It is specific but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools that also list different resources, though the resource type is distinct enough.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. The description only describes its own behavior, not when to choose this over other list tools or other approaches.

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