github_gists_list_starred

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List starred gists,' omitting crucial details such as the fact that it returns gists starred by the authenticated user, potential authentication requirements, or any side effects. The lack of such information limits the agent's understanding.

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 extremely concise at only two words. While it avoids verbosity, it lacks structure and additional information that could aid the agent without adding clutter. It is minimally functional but uninformative beyond the name.

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 good schema coverage, the description is still incomplete. It fails to explain the scope ('my starred gists'), return format, or any behavioral context. Without an output schema, more detail would be beneficial. The description relies heavily on the tool name for meaning.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 starred gists' is clear and specific. The verb 'list' and the resource 'starred gists' precisely indicate the action, and it effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like github_gists_list (lists user's gists) and github_gists_list_for_user (lists another user's gists).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_gists_list or github_gists_list_public. It lacks information about prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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