gitRepos

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. While 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, it does not disclose the exact scope of repositories (e.g., local, remote, configured), output format, or any potential side effects. This is a significant gap given the lack of 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 a single, concise sentence that effectively states the core purpose. It is not overly verbose, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming bloated.

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 no parameters, output schema, or annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It fails to specify what kind of Git repositories are listed (e.g., all repositories, remote repos, or repositories tied to the current session), making it somewhat ambiguous in the broader context of sibling tools.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none, but this is acceptable.

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 action ('Retrieves') and the resource ('a list of Git repositories'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gitCreateRepo and gitPullRepo by focusing on listing rather than modifying 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as gitExternalRepoInfo or remoteRepoInfo. It also lacks any context about prerequisites or intended use cases.

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