get_git_repositories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'returns list' which implies a read operation, but does not clarify behavior like requiring a project identifier, handling missing parameters, or edge cases such as empty results. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the function 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 filler words. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose without redundancy.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description leaves ambiguity about whether at least one parameter is required, whether they are mutually exclusive, and what the returned list contains. The description does not sufficiently compensate for the lack of annotations or output schema, making it incomplete for a tool with this ambiguity.

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% with both parameters (projectId and projectKey) already described clearly. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage notes for the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states the tool returns a list of Git repositories for a project, using a specific verb and resource. The inclusion of 'list' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_git_repository' which likely returns a single repository.

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 context ('for a project') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over 'get_git_repository' or mention alternatives/exclusions. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so it remains at an implied level.

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