list_repos

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context by indicating that the data comes from the server's cache and enumerates the metadata fields (clone status, analysis status, branches, cache sizes), giving the agent a clear picture of what to expect without requiring an output schema.

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 that conveys all essential information without redundancy. It efficiently states the action, scope, and return content.

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, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the exact return value (all cached repos with specific metadata fields) and the nature of the data (from cache), leaving no significant gaps.

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 accepts zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivial. The baseline score of 4 applies, and the description adds no parameter information because none is needed; it focuses on the tool's result.

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 identifies the action (list) and the resource (all repositories in the MCP server's cache) and specifies the included metadata. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_repo_status or list_repository_branches, which focus on a single repository or its branches.

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 clearly implies this is the tool to use when you want an overview of all cached repositories. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as using get_repo_status for a single repository's status.

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