jfrog_list_repositories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint:idempotentHint, and destructiveHint:false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the behavioral trait of cursor-based pagination, which is not in annotations and is useful context for the agent. It does not go into rate limits or error behavior, but the annotations lower the bar.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word is informative. 'List JFrog repositories with optional filters and cursor pagination' is concise and complete for the tool's core purpose, with zero waste.

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 tool has 5 optional params, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is adequate. It explains the core listing function and pagination, but could be more complete by mentioning how filters interact (e.g., AND combination) or providing guidance on use cases. Still, the presence of output schema and annotations fills many 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (type, limit, cursor, project, package_type) having a clear description. The tool description only says 'optional filters' without adding any new meaning, so it does not improve on what the schema already provides. Baseline of 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 JFrog repositories, using the specific verb 'list' and resource 'repositories'. It distinguishes from siblings like jfrog_list_path and jfrog_find_files, and adds scope with 'optional filters and cursor pagination'.

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 listing repositories and mentions optional filters and pagination, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., when to prefer jfrog_find_files or jfrog_list_path). No exclusions or alternative references are given, so guidance is only implicit.

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