github_list_org_repos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only repeats the operation and parameter semantics, and does not mention auth/session requirements, whether private repos are included based on permissions, or pagination/result-limit behavior. This leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 clear purpose sentence followed by a compact Args block. Every line earns its place, with no redundancy or filler, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

All five parameters are documented with meaningful semantics and defaults, and the output schema covers return values. The main gaps are the lack of explicit usage-alternative guidance and behavioral notes about authentication, but the tool is still sufficiently complete 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter, listing valid values for repo_type and sort, and stating defaults. This gives the agent concrete information needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'repositories for an organization', which directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_list_repos and github_list_user_repos. The org scope is explicit and unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates the intended context: listing repositories for a specific organization. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the org-specific scope and sibling tool names make the appropriate use case fairly inferable.

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