tea_repos_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'List', implying a read operation, but adds no details about pagination, rate limits, or how the optional parameters affect results. The statement adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 with no wasted words. It clearly states the core purpose without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 presence of optional parameters and absence of an output schema, the description should explain how params affect results or what the response contains. It does neither, making it incomplete for an agent to effectively use the tool.

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%, and the description does not mention either `type` or `limit` parameters. It fails to add any contextual meaning to the schema, leaving the agent to infer parameter usage from the schema alone. This is a significant gap.

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 specifies the verb 'List' and resource 'repositories you have access to', distinguishing it from sibling tools like tea_repo_view (single repo) and tea_issues_list (issues). It conveys both action and scope concisely.

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 states the primary use case: listing accessible repositories. It provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives. For a simple list operation, this is adequate.

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