github_org_repos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions pagination ('Returns a page') and scope ('public repositories'), but omits details like authentication, rate limits, or pagination behavior (e.g., defaults, max page size). Minimal transparency.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action and resource. Highly concise and efficient.

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 list tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It covers the basic purpose and pagination hint, but could be more helpful about sorting, filtering (type, direction), or expected response structure.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no new semantic information beyond the schema; the parenthetical 'company tech stack' is a use-case hint, not parameter detail. Baseline 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 the verb (List) and resource (GitHub organization's public repositories), and the parenthetical '(company tech stack)' adds context. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like github_user_repos and github_search_repositories.

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 explicit mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_repo for single repos, github_search_repositories for search). The use case is implied by the name and description, but guidance is lacking.

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