list_org_repos

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates safety, and the description does not add behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention whether private repositories are included, whether authentication is required, how pagination behaves, or any filtering semantics. The description provides only the basic read action.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately understandable.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, but the description omits usage context, parameter clarification, and behavioral details. The presence of closely related siblings like list_repos and list_my_repos makes the lack of differentiation a meaningful completeness gap.

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%, so the description needed to compensate for the absence of parameter details. It does not explain org format, page meaning, or limit behavior. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the tool description adds no semantic value for any of the three parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List an organization's repositories.' This clearly identifies the operation and its target. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like list_repos or list_my_repos, so it stops one step short of full differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many repository-listing siblings such as list_repos, list_my_repos, or search_repos. No mention of authentication scope, organization name requirements, or exclusion criteria is provided.

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