github_repos_list_for_org

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

No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The agent has no insight into side effects or permissions needed, which is a critical gap.

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 only one sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not front-load key details or provide a clear summary. While it is not verbose, it is too brief to be fully effective.

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 has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain return values, pagination behavior, and scope (e.g., all repos in org). The current description omits this essential context, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters (org, type, sort, direction, per_page, page) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 organization repositories' clearly states the action and resource ('list' and 'organization repositories'). It is concise and aligns with the tool name, but does not differentiate from other list tools like 'github_repos_list_forks' or 'github_repos_list_collaborators'.

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 usage guidelines are provided; the description does not specify when to use this tool, what alternatives exist (e.g., for user repos or specific types), or mention pagination or filtering capabilities. This leaves the agent without contextual decision support.

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