github_skills_list_repositories

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description simply states 'List' which is consistent. It does not add behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as whether the list is alphabetical or if it refreshes. With annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but not additive.

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 sentence containing only essential information: verb, resource, and scope. No filler words. This is ideal conciseness and front-loads the key action.

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 tool's simplicity (list with one optional format parameter), an output schema exists to document return values. The description is complete enough to understand the tool's purpose and usage. It may lack an explicit note that it only shows configured (not all) repositories, but that is implied by 'configured for this MCP server'. A slight improvement would be stating that the list is pre-configured.

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 has one parameter (response_format) which is already documented in the schema with a description 'Output format' and enum values. Schema coverage is effectively 100% because the parameter has a schema description. The tool description does not mention or add to parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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', the specific resource 'GitHub skill repositories', and the scope 'configured for this MCP server'. This distinguishes it from siblings like github_skills_get_skill (retrieves a single skill) and github_skills_search_skills (searches), providing unambiguous purpose.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. However, the purpose is self-evident for listing configured repositories, and the read-only annotations imply safe use. A more explicit note about when to prefer this over search or get would elevate the score.

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