list_repos

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

No annotations are provided, but this is a read-only list operation which the description's 'List' verb conveys clearly. It's unambiguous as a read operation given the verb choice. However, it doesn't disclose return format, ordering, pagination, or whether it includes all metadata or just summaries. The verb carries most of the transparency burden adequately.

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?

Three words, zero waste. Every word earns its place: 'List' states the action, 'all' states the scope, 'Repos' states the resource. This is the ideal conciseness for a trivial list operation.

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 zero parameters, an output schema exists, and this is a simple list operation, the description is nearly complete. However, it doesn't specify what the returned list contains (e.g., repo names only vs. full repo objects) or whether there are limits on the result set. For a simple list tool with an output schema present, this is adequate but could mention the scope of the listing more fully.

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 zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable in a detailed sense. The description's mention of 'all' signals the complete scope with no filtering options, which is all the agent needs to know given no parameters exist. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a 0-param tool.

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 'List all Repos' clearly states the verb (List) and resource (Repos), specifying the full scope of the operation. It's terse but unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling list tools like list_tasks, list_components, and list_governance_entities, though the resource name distinguishes it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include list_tasks, list_components, and list_governance_entities, and the description doesn't clarify when listing repos is appropriate or what distinguishes it. No exclusions or context provided.

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