list_my_repos

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions pagination (page 1-based, limit ≤ 100) and that each repo object is large, but does not disclose authentication or rate limit details. For a read-only operation, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences with no waste. First sentence states core function, second gives pagination details, third gives usage guidance. Highly efficient.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the tool's purpose, behavior, and usage. It is sufficient for an AI agent to select this tool over siblings for repository discovery. Missing explicit return structure but acceptable.

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 covers 100% of parameters. The description adds value by explaining pagination semantics and advising on keeping limit modest due to large objects. This goes beyond the schema's basic type and range descriptions.

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 'List repositories the authenticated token's user can access (across ALL owners/orgs).' It specifies the verb (list), resource (repositories), and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on issues, pull requests, etc.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use to DISCOVER owner/repo values or find where to work, not to list one repo's issues.' This tells when to use and when not to, effectively differentiating from issue-related tools. However, it does not name a specific alternative tool.

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