github_list_repos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses behavior reasonably well—listing repos with owner/type/sort filters—but doesn't mention pagination limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid owner names or repo_type values. For a read-only list operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 well-structured with the purpose statement up front and parameter explanations listed clearly. It's efficient with no filler. The main opportunity cost is that parameter explanations could be folded more tightly, but overall the format is clean and scannable.

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?

There is an output schema present, so return-value documentation isn't needed. The description covers the purpose, all 5 parameters (though briefly), and the authentication context ('GitHub session to use'). It's reasonably complete for a straightforward list operation, though it could add note about what pagination/max_results behavior means.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema JSON. The description compensates slightly by listing each parameter with a brief inline explanation (owner, repo_type, sort, max_results, session_name). This adds meaning beyond just parameter names, but the explanations are minimal—no enums or valid value lists are provided even though the description mentions specific filter strings.

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 clearly states a specific verb+resource action: 'List repositories for the authenticated user or a specific user/org.' It names the scope (user or org) and distinguishes from siblings like github_list_user_repos and github_list_org_repos by clarifying it handles both cases via the owner parameter.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool (listing repos generally), and the owner parameter clarifies the difference between authenticated user and specific user/org, which helps avoid confusion with github_get_repo (single repo). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use alternatives like github_search_repos or github_list_user_repos vs this tool, leaving some ambiguity.

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