list_repositories

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a key behavioral trait, and mentions the authenticated token scope. Since no annotations are provided, this adds useful context. However, it omits other potential behavioral details like default ordering or pagination, which may be partially covered by the output schema.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no filler words. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers safety and authentication scope but lacks usage guidelines and any parameter explanations. Given the absence of annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description is not fully complete for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool across likely scenarios.

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 does not mention any of the four parameters (sort, direction, visibility, max_results). With 0% schema description coverage, the description completely fails to compensate or add semantic meaning to these parameters, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names and enums.

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 uses the verb 'List' with the resource 'repositories' and specifies the scope as 'accessible to the authenticated GitHub token.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_repository, which targets a single repository. The purpose is specific and non-tautological.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_repository. The phrase 'List repositories' implies a broad enumeration, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it, what scenarios it suits, or any exclusions.

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