list_github_repositories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the deprecation status, the return format (flat array with htmlUrl), and a specific instruction about not claiming public-repository requirements. These go beyond the annotations and are useful for correct invocation.

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 front-loaded with the deprecation warning and alternative, then covers usage, return format, and a caution in a structured manner. It is slightly long but every sentence serves a purpose, with no fluff.

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 deprecated tool, the description is remarkably complete: it tells the agent what to use instead, how to obtain the required parameter, what the return shape is, and a behavioral caution. Combined with the output schema and annotations, nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description already states it comes from list_integration_instances. The description reinforces this by instructing the agent to call list_integration_instances first and pass the selected instance ID, adding practical context beyond the schema.

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 lists public and private GitHub repositories accessible through a connected Staticbot GitHub integration, and explicitly names the alternative tool (list_source_repositories) that supersedes it. This distinguishes it from siblings and leaves no ambiguity about its function.

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 'Deprecated — use list_source_repositories' and provides a step-by-step usage path: call list_integration_instances first, then pass the selected GitHub instance ID. It also includes a behavioral caution about not claiming Staticbot requires a public repository, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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