List readable repositories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the list is restricted to readable repositories and explicitly excludes non-readable ones. It also mentions included data (article counts). No mention of error behavior or pagination, but for a simple read-only list, this is reasonable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope. No redundant text; every sentence adds value.

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 description covers the main return value (repositories and article counts) and explicitly states a limitation (no non-readable repos). Given the tool's simplicity and lack of parameters, this is sufficient, though it could optionally mention output format or pagination.

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 trivially complete. Per the rubric, 0 params baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter information because there are none.

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 what the tool does: lists repositories readable by the token, with article counts. It distinguishes from sibling tools (search_articles, get_article) which focus on articles rather than repos. Scope is explicit.

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 description implies usage context: use when you need to know which repositories the token can read and their article counts. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling names make the distinction obvious. No wrong-usage guidance, but also no explicit 'when-not-to-use'.

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