List Design Repositories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about case-insensitive id/name acceptance and the short-token format of actual values, which goes beyond annotations. No contradiction exists.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying useful information: purpose, return fields, usage guidance, and a warning against invented values. It could be slightly tightened by merging the 'name' guidance with the id/name acceptance sentence, but there is no filler.

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?

For a simple list tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough return-value semantics and practical guidance. It lacks explicit contrast with sibling list tools and does not mention pagination behavior, but those are minor for this straightforward operation.

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 only response_format documented. The description does not clarify limit, offset, or how response_format affects output. Since low schema coverage requires more compensation from the description, this gap is significant.

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 design repositories in OpenL Studio.' It also clarifies the returned fields ('id' and 'name') and gives concrete value examples, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like openl_list_deploy_repositories.

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 useful operational guidance, such as preferring the 'name' field and never inventing repository values. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like openl_list_deploy_repositories, leaving tool-selection partly to inference.

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