github_list_repos

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

No annotations are provided, and the description omits behavioral traits like default per_page, pagination, authentication requirements, or what happens when username is omitted. 'List' implies a read operation but lacks substantive behavioral details.

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 three words, with no unnecessary content. While it could benefit from more detail, it is efficient and direct.

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 with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description still falls short. It does not specify whether it lists repos for the authenticated user or a given username, nor does it mention default behavior or pagination limits.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the purpose of the parameters (username, per_page). The agent gets no additional insight beyond the schema, which has no descriptions either.

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 GitHub repositories' clearly indicates a read operation for repositories. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_get_repo or github_search_code, which also deal with GitHub repositories but with different scopes.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as github_get_repo for a single repository or github_search_code for searching code. No prerequisites or context for using it effectively.

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