ncloud_sourcebuild_list_repositories

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds the useful context that the list is filtered by SourceBuild eligibility, but does not disclose additional behaviors such as pagination, sorting, or permission requirements. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, focused sentence that directly states the action and resource, with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 (no parameters, clear list operation, read-only annotation), the description is complete. It conveys the essential purpose and the SourceBuild filter, making it sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed; the baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 tool lists SourceCommit repositories, specifically those available for SourceBuild. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_sourcecommit_list_repos, which lists all SourceCommit repositories without the SourceBuild filter.

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 'available for SourceBuild' implies the context of use: when configuring or managing SourceBuild projects. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough.

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