github_activity_list_stargazers_for_repo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does not mention pagination, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about what happens beyond the basic listing.

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?

At two words, it is extremely concise but sacrifices clarity. It is not 'appropriately sized' because it omits critical context. It is front-loaded but lacks substance.

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, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the result format, scoping, or how it differs from similar list endpoints, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 states 'List stargazers', which identifies the action and resource. The tool name adds further context (for a repo). It differentiates from sibling tools like 'list_repos_starred_by_user' by implying it lists stargazers of a specific 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 given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. Among many activity-related siblings, the description does not clarify that this tool is for listing stargazers of a specific repo, which could cause confusion.

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