ncloud_pipeline_list_sourcecommit_repos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that the repos are 'available for pipeline configuration', implying a filtered result set, which is beyond the annotation and useful for understanding 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 that efficiently conveys the action, resource, and context. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 low-complexity with a read-only annotation and fully documented parameters. The description provides sufficient context, though the term 'available' could be more explicit about what qualifies a repo as available for pipeline configuration.

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 100%, with all three parameters (pageNo, pageSize, searchWord) having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('SourceCommit repositories'), and the qualifier 'for pipeline configuration' clearly distinguishes this from the generic sibling 'ncloud_sourcecommit_list_repos'. It also contrasts with deploy-specific tools like 'ncloud_sourcedeploy_get_sourcecommit_repos'.

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 phrase 'for pipeline configuration' provides clear context on when to use this tool (when setting up pipeline source repositories). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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