github_gists_list_public

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List public gists' and does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or that it returns a list of gist objects. The input schema hints at pagination, but the description itself is insufficient.

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, which is concise, but it lacks structure and depth. It is too minimal to provide meaningful guidance. While not verbose, it could benefit from additional context without losing conciseness.

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 and full schema coverage, the description is still incomplete. It does not explain what the response contains, any ordering defaults, or if there are any limitations. The schema helps, but the description alone does not provide sufficient context for an agent to confidently use the 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (since, per_page, page), each with clear explanations and links. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 'List public gists' clearly states the verb (list) and the specific resource (public gists). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like github_gists_list (which lists the authenticated user's gists) and github_gists_list_for_user (which lists gists for a specific user), as 'public' specifies a global subset.

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 versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that to list gists for a specific user one should use github_gists_list_for_user, or that to list starred gists one should use github_gists_list_starred. The description lacks any context for selection.

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