aiworkhub_router_known_repositories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and the description confirms READ-ONLY, but it adds genuine scope context beyond that: the registry is shared/cross-repository while task operations are per-repo. It does not explain what 'bounded' means, whether the registry refreshes live, or how results behave when the registry is empty or large.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the READ-ONLY marker, and every sentence contributes scope information rather than filler. Slightly indirect phrasing ('repository routes', 'MCP child') costs a bit of first-read clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the read-only profile is covered by annotations. What's missing is how the returned routes are meant to be consumed (e.g., fed into repo switching) and any parameter semantics, which leaves the definition adequate but thin for a discovery entry point.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and neither parameter is documented in the schema, so the description carries the full burden. The words 'bounded' and 'live' hint at limit and include_inactive but never state what limit counts or that include_inactive surfaces retired routes, so an agent must guess both.

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 names the resource concretely ('bounded shared registry of live AIWorkHub repository routes') and frames it as discovery, so an agent knows it enumerates repositories. The implicit verb (list/read) is never stated outright, and no sibling such as aiworkhub_repo_list or aiworkhub_repo_current is named to disambiguate.

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?

'This is discovery only' plus the note that task storage/mutation stay with the current repository's own .aiworkhub child gives a real boundary for when to use it. However, it never says which of the many repo-related siblings (aiworkhub_repo_list, aiworkhub_repo_current, aiworkhub_repo_switch) to pick instead, leaving the key selection decision to inference.

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