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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key scoping constraint (only App-installed repos are returned) and enumerates the returned fields, but says nothing about read-only nature, pagination, result limits, or rate limiting. Useful, but incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the return fields appended concisely. No filler, no restating of the title.

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?

For a zero-param list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers what is returned and the scope limitation. Pagination behavior and whether results are capped are the only material omissions, which are minor for this shape of tool.

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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description instead spends its words on what the (absent) output schema cannot convey — owner/name, private flag, default branch, description — which is genuinely additive.

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?

States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("GitHub repositories") and pins the scope to repos the Eco GitHub App was installed on, which implicitly separates it from github_read and github_search. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the installation-scope qualifier makes the boundary clear enough.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the entry point for discovering repos before github_read / github_create_issue / github_propose_change. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite note (e.g., that the app must be installed), and no named alternative.

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