bb_list_repositories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the basic function and does not disclose pagination behavior, default page size, whether all repositories are returned, or any potential limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool with no other behavioral metadata.

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 front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes to meaning, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, and the presence of several sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the response contains, how pagination works, or how this tool differs from bb_search_repositories. A more complete description would include default pagination info and cross-references to alternatives.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description itself adds no semantics beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 action (List), the resource (repositories), and the scope (in a workspace). It distinguishes from sibling tools like bb_search_repositories (which implies a query) and bb_get_repository (single repository).

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bb_search_repositories or bb_browse_repository. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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