list_repos

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals one mode-specific behavior ('In workspace mode this returns every configured workspace repo alias') but leaves non-workspace mode unspecified. This ambiguity is a significant gap since the description implies multiple modes without explaining the default behavior or any side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause adds value. There is no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool is simple (zero parameters) and has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description explains the workspace-mode behavior and how to use the aliases, but the unexplained non-workspace mode is a completeness gap. Given the low complexity, the description is mostly adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so per the baseline rule for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter information (there are none), but it does reference the 'repo' parameter on other tools, which helps the agent understand how the output is used, though not directly relevant to this tool's own schema.

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 the tool's function: 'List repos available through this MCP server.' The verb 'list' and resource 'repos' are specific, and none of the sibling tools (search_codebase, get_answer, etc.) are about listing repos, so it is well-differentiated.

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 provides clear usage context: 'In workspace mode this returns every configured workspace repo alias. Use those aliases as the repo parameter on workspace-aware tools.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (to obtain repo aliases for other tools). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it misses the full 'when/when-not' guidance.

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