github.list_repos

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'sorted and paginated', which is a behavioral trait, but doesn't disclose details like default sort order, pagination semantics, authentication requirements, or read-only nature. This is minimal transparency for a tool with no annotations.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and scope. No fluff or redundancy, every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation with an output schema (not shown), so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks details on authentication, public vs private repos, or pagination limits. It's adequate but with gaps in usage context that could affect 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only references 'owner', 'sorted', and 'paginated' vaguely, without explaining the parameters' meanings, valid sort values, or pagination configuration. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds little beyond that.

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 the tool's function: 'List repositories for an owner (user or org)', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_repo (single repo) and list_prs (pull requests) by specifying the resource type and scope.

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 gives clear context on when to use: listing repositories for a given owner. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the scope is unambiguous given the sibling tools. It lacks explicit exclusions but provides sufficient context for an agent to select it for repository listing tasks.

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