github_list_repos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add that the tool operates on the 'authenticated user' and returns 'metadata', which provides some context. However, it does not detail return format, pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements beyond user scoping. For a read-only list operation, some behavior is self-evident, so this is a minimal but acceptable disclosure.

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 sentence of eight words that states the core functionality without unnecessary detail. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the main action and resource.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should explain return values more clearly. It mentions 'metadata' but does not specify what fields are returned or any pagination behavior. The tool is relatively simple, so the description is not severely inadequate, but it leaves gaps for the agent to discover.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema covers sort and type with descriptive enums. The 'limit' parameter lacks a description, yet its name and numeric constraints make its meaning clear. With 67% schema description coverage, the description does not need to significantly compensate, and the schema provides adequate semantics.

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 repositories for the authenticated user with metadata' uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('repositories'), and clarifies scope ('for the authenticated user'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_list_branches and github_search_issues, which focus on different resources.

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 does not mention exclusions or explicitly state that this should be used for listing the user's own repositories as opposed to searching or retrieving stats. The usage context is only implied by the purpose statement.

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