github_list_starred

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

Since annotations are entirely absent, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context by mentioning the 10-minute TTL cache, which aligns with the 'refresh' parameter breathing room. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, response shape, or that this is purely read-only, leaving some important operational 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 front-loaded sentence: it states the purpose immediately and appends the cache behavior in a parenthetical. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema information, making it easy to scan and process.

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?

For a tool with five optional parameters, full schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description provides the core function and a notable behavioral trait. But it leaves 'details' vague, does not explain return format or pagination defaults beyond the schema, and gives no relationship to sibling tools like github_batch_get_starred_with_readme, so an agent may not fully understand trade-offs.

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 already describes all five parameters, including defaults and constraints, so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning for page, sort, per_page, or direction; its only parameter-related addition is the cache TTL context that explains the refresh parameter's purpose.

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 ('Fetch') and a clear resource ('starred repositories'), and explicitly mentions pagination and details. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like github_batch_get_starred_with_readme or github_search_stars, so an agent may still need to infer which list-style tool to use.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as github_search_stars, github_batch_get_starred_with_readme, and github_export_catalog, the description gives no explicit selection criteria or exclusions. The only implied context is the word 'list', which is not enough to route an agent confidently.

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