List Lizard Git repositories

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's job is to add beyond that — and it does: the default result set (owned + collaborated repos) and the auth constraint that 'Lizard Git refuses API keys with scopes'. Neither is derivable from annotations or schema. Return shape and pagination remain undisclosed.

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 compact sentences with no filler, and the platform clarification plus default scope come first. The semicolon-chained parameter clauses are dense but readable and each sentence earns its place.

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 two-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers platform, default scope, filtering, and an auth caveat. Missing only pagination/result-size behavior, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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%, so the description must carry the parameters, and it explains both: owner narrows to a single owner, query searches names and descriptions. It stops short of saying whether the two combine or how matching works, so it is good but not exhaustive compensation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list Lizard Git repositories) and explicitly disambiguates the platform from GitHub, which matters given the sibling set spans domains, services, and sandboxes. It does not name a sibling alternative such as repo_show, so it falls short of a 5.

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 default scoping ('the user's own and the ones they collaborate on') implies when this tool is the right entry point, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer repo_show or pr_list instead, and no exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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