list_stargazers

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden and does disclose key behavioral traits: it requires a PAT, and without credentials it falls back to mock data. This is valuable context about authentication and data reliability. However, it doesn't cover pagination behavior, rate limits, or return format 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?

A single, concise sentence that packs the core purpose and critical credential behavior without any waste. Front-loads the main action and appends the important auth caveat.

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 (list operation, 3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and the auth/mock behavior. It could be more complete by mentioning pagination or return format, but is largely sufficient for correct 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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (page, repo, owner) with descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (stargazers/users who starred the repo), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like get_repo_stats or list_issues. An agent can immediately understand the tool lists users who starred a repository.

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?

Implies usage context by noting PAT requirement and mock fallback, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the credential note.

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