github_repo_stargazers

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it returns a page of users but omits details like pagination behavior, result ordering, rate limits, or whether results are mutable. The read nature is implied but not explicit.

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, no redundant information. Front-loads the main purpose and adds a single useful contextual note (buyer-intent signal). Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what fields are returned for each user (e.g., login, avatar URL, etc.). It only says 'a page of users' but lacks detail on return structure, pagination response format, or error handling. Incomplete for a list 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?

Schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., owner/repo descriptions are already clear). Baseline 3 is appropriate as description is adequate but adds no additional semantics.

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 users who starred a repository, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('users who starred a repository'). It adds the buyer-intent signal context, distinguishing it from other GitHub repo tools like github_repo_contributors or github_repo.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., github_repo for star count, or other GitHub list tools). There is no mention of when not to use it or scenarios where it is appropriate.

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