github_list_user_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 states the tool lists public repositories and implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose behavior such as rate limits, session requirements, or error handling for invalid usernames.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary followed by a compact Args list. Every line adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

With an output schema present and a straightforward list operation, the description is largely sufficient for correct invocation. It covers all parameters and scope, but could more strongly connect to surrounding authentication/session concepts or differentiate from overlapping repo-list tools.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by documenting all four parameters, including valid sort options ('updated', 'created', 'pushed', 'full_name') and defaults. However, 'session_name' is only glossed as 'GitHub session to use', adding limited clarity beyond the schema.

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 public repositories for a specific user' uses a specific verb+resource and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like github_list_repos, github_list_org_repos, and github_search_repos by emphasizing 'specific user' and 'public'.

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 usage context is implied ('for a specific user') but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_list_repos or github_search_repos, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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