list_gists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it lists gists 'for the authenticated user,' implying authentication is required, but doesn't disclose other behaviors like pagination (implied by parameters), rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a list operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and scope.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a list tool with pagination parameters. It lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, return format (e.g., list of gist objects), or error cases. The high schema coverage helps with inputs, but overall context is insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for 'since' (time filter), 'per_page' (pagination limit), and 'page' (pagination offset). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating 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 gists for the authenticated user' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('gists'), with the scope 'for the authenticated user' distinguishing it from potential public listing tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_gist' (which retrieves a specific gist), though the 'list' vs 'get' naming helps.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_gist' (for single gists) or 'search_code' (which might find gists), nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., authentication requirements) or exclusions (e.g., not for public gists).

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