aiworkhub_repo_list

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'READ-ONLY' label is mostly redundant. It adds useful scope with 'bounded live' and 'available to this manager', but does not explain what 'bounded' means, how limit affects results, or how include_inactive changes behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. 'READ-ONLY' is placed first, and the remaining clause states the resource and scope efficiently.

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 output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but for a two-parameter list tool the description is too sparse. It omits parameter semantics and any selection guidance against closely related repository 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?

There are two parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions limit or include_inactive. It adds no meaning beyond the bare parameter names and defaults.

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 identifies the resource clearly as repository identities available to this manager, with a read-only scope. It is specific enough to distinguish listing from switching or current-repo retrieval, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

It states READ-ONLY but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus repo_current, repo_switch, or router_known_repositories. The agent is left to infer the choice from the name and surrounding context.

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