github_repos_list_forks

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits like pagination (via per_page/page), potential errors if repo doesn't exist, or rate limiting. The description simply says 'List forks' without any such disclosure, leaving the agent uninformed about side effects or constraints.

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, consisting of two words. While it is front-loaded, it lacks structure and is arguably under-sized for the complexity of the tool. It earns its place but does not provide enough information for an agent to use it effectively.

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 absence of an output schema and the moderate complexity of the tool (5 parameters, pagination, sorting), the description is severely lacking. It does not mention return values, common use cases, or behavior of parameters like sort order. The description is far from complete.

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% coverage, describing all 5 parameters with basic descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description fails to add value.

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 forks' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (forks). It is specific enough to distinguish from other list tools like 'list branches' or 'list commits'. The verb+resource combination directly conveys what the tool does.

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 when to create a fork instead. There is no mention of prerequisites, common scenarios, or excluded use cases. The implicit context of listing forks is not enough for an agent to make informed decisions.

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