List Design Repositories

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, so safety is clear. The description adds behavioral details about the returned data (id and name) and a warning about value authenticity, which is helpful beyond the 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value. However, it could be slightly more concise by merging the second and third sentences.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description explains return fields and usage in other tools. However, it omits information about pagination (limit/offset behavior) and the response_format parameter, which are present in the schema but not described, leaving completeness gaps.

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?

The description does not explain any of the three parameters (limit, offset, response_format) beyond what is in the input schema. With 33% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add semantic value for parameter usage.

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 states it lists all design repositories and specifies the returned fields (id, name). It is specific to design repositories, distinguishing it from projects or deploy repositories, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 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?

Provides explicit guidance on using the 'name' field with other tools, notes case-insensitivity of id/name, and warns against inventing values. However, it does not specify when to avoid using this tool or mention alternatives.

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