list_repositories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'visible to the authenticated user' implying authentication, but does not disclose authorization needs (e.g., personal access tokens), rate limits, pagination behavior (despite perPage parameter), or what 'archived' filtering implies. It fails to add behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 sentence, making it concise. However, it is too brief given the tool's complexity, sacrificing necessary detail. It front-loads the purpose but provides no structure for parameter usage or behavioral notes. It earns a 3 as minimally viable but not optimally structured.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain how filters interact, what the response format is (pagination, fields), or edge cases (e.g., empty results, rate limiting). An agent cannot use this tool effectively without external knowledge.

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 must explain parameters. It only says 'with filters', offering zero explanation for the 11 parameters (owner, org, type, visibility, etc.). The agent has no context on how to use owner vs org, or the meaning of enum values like 'type:member'. This is a critical gap.

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 repositories visible to the authenticated user with filters' clearly states the verb (list), resource (repositories), and scope (visible to authenticated user, with filters). It distinguishes from siblings like create, delete, update by indicating a read-only listing operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other listing-like siblings (none exist here) and could be more specific about what 'visible' means.

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 implies usage for listing with filters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., using search or specific get endpoints). No 'when not to use' or prerequisites are mentioned. The agent must infer that this is the right tool for listing, but lacks context for exclusionary criteria.

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