List Deployment Repositories

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful output detail by stating it returns names, types, and status, but it does not disclose pagination behavior or how 'all' interacts with the limit/offset parameters.

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?

Two sentences contain all essential information with no filler. The first sentence states the action and output; the second sentence provides the use case. Everything present 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?

The description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it, which is adequate for a simple read-only list tool. However, it omits pagination semantics, does not disambiguate from sibling tools like list_deployments or list_repositories, and has no output schema, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 only 33%, with limit and offset lacking descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not mention any parameters or compensate for this gap, leaving pagination semantics and response format options unexplained despite the tool claiming to list all repositories.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List all deployment repositories in OpenL Studio' and enumerates the returned content (repository names, types, and status). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_deployments or list_repositories by name, although it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 phrase 'Use this to discover all available deployment repositories before deploying projects' provides a clear use context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or how it compares to similar tools such as openl_list_repositories or openl_list_deployments.

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