list_repositories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that a Repository is 'distinct from a Project', which adds useful context, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: it doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), doesn't mention pagination behavior (though parameters suggest it), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clarifying note and a use case. There's minimal waste, though the bracketed '[Code Management]' adds little value. It could be slightly more structured but is efficient overall.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values (what the list contains, format), error handling, authentication needs, and how it interacts with sibling tools. The use case is too vague to compensate for these gaps, making it insufficient for effective agent use.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters with descriptions, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 ('Get the CodeUp Repository List') and resource ('Repository'), with a brief definition of what a Repository is. It distinguishes from Projects, which is helpful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_repository' (singular) or 'search_projects', leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific list tool versus alternatives.

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 includes a 'Use Case: View my repositories', which provides implied context for when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over other list/search tools (e.g., 'search_projects' or 'get_repository'), and doesn't mention prerequisites like authentication or organization context. The guidance is present but minimal.

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