List repositories

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that, including the default visibility boundary, the admin requirement for instance scope, the performance cost of include_inactive, and the relationship between inactive repositories and forge_remote_id. No contradiction with annotations.

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 focused sentences deliver the core behavior, the key parameter distinctions, the admin caveat, and a cross-tool hint without wasted words. The most important default behavior is front-loaded.

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?

The description is complete for a listing tool: it explains all meaningful mode switches, the admin constraint, the performance tradeoff, and the connection to activate_repository. The output schema and fully documented parameters cover return shape and pagination, so no critical operational context is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds extra value by explaining that include_inactive is only meaningful for account scope, that it is noticeably slower, and that the returned forge_remote_id is intended for activate_repository. This supplements rather than merely repeats the schema parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Lists repositories') and then clarifies the scope variants: authenticated account view, inactive forge repos, and instance-wide view. It also ties one variant to the forge_remote_id needed by activate_repository, which helps distinguish this listing tool from nearby repository-related siblings.

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 gives clear conditions for each mode: default account-scope listing, include_inactive for never-activated forge repositories, and scope="instance" for admin-only server-wide listing. It does not explicitly say 'use X instead when Y,' but it names activate_repository as the consumer of the forge_remote_id, giving practical routing context.

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