Top repositorios do GitHub

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It specifies that it returns public repositories with main language and star count, which is useful, but it does not mention pagination, rate limits, authentication, or error behavior. The description adds some context but is not rich.

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, effective sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Lista' and clearly communicates the tool's purpose. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it both concise and well-structured.

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 simple read-only list tool with 2 parameters and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. It states the output fields (language and star count) and implies a list structure, though it lacks an explicit output schema. It does not mention potential edge cases like user not found, but overall it provides enough context for typical 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%, with both 'username' and 'limit' parameters having descriptive text. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is 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 it lists the most starred public repositories of a GitHub user with language and star count, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_github_profile and get_language_stats by focusing on repositories rather than profile or language statistics.

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 its usage (for listing a user's top repos) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_github_profile or get_language_stats. It does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites, so it offers only implied usage.

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