github_teams_list_repos_legacy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List', implying a read operation, but does not confirm read-only behavior, mention pagination details beyond the schema, or specify rate limits or other traits. The schema covers pagination but the description adds no behavioral context.

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 a single phrase. It is front-loaded with the action, but its brevity leaves out potentially useful context. Still, every word serves a purpose.

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 name includes 'Legacy', the description should ideally indicate its status and possibly recommend the modern alternative. It does not mention what the response contains (no output schema), nor does it provide any contextual information about when to use this endpoint. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for an agent seeking to understand the tool's role.

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 with clear parameter descriptions for team_id, per_page, and page. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'team repositories', with the suffix '(Legacy)' distinguishing it from the modern version. This provides a specific purpose, though it could be more explicit about what team repositories are.

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. Notably, there is a sibling tool 'github_teams_list_repos_in_org' which is likely the modern version, but the description does not mention this or give any context on choosing between them.

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