list_repos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does add the note that workspace 'uses default if not provided', which explains a defaulting behavior. However, it does not disclose read-only status, permissions, pagination, or potential 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 extremely concise, with a single sentence for purpose and a brief parameter note. Every word contributes value, and the structure is clean.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the main behavior and parameter semantics. It does not address potential ambiguities like what the default workspace is or how to enumerate all repos across workspaces, but these are minor for a basic list 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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's 'Args' section explicitly documents the workspace parameter as a 'Workspace slug' and explains the default behavior. This provides meaningful semantic information beyond the bare 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 'List repositories in a workspace' with a specific verb and object. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_repo (single repo) and list_branches, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_workspaces or get_repo. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or recommended use cases.

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