github_list_repos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'List', which implies read-only, and 'for the authenticated user', which implies authentication and scoping, but it doesn't mention pagination behavior, response format, or that the list can be filtered by the 'type' parameter. Important details like rate limits or that only repos the user has access to are returned are absent.

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 sentence that conveys the essential purpose without extraneous words. It is front-loaded and every word contributes value, making it highly concise and appropriately 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?

With 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about expected return values and behavioral nuances. It doesn't mention that results are paginated, that the 'type' parameter controls which repos are listed, or how the listing differs from searching, leaving an agent under-informed for proper usage.

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 has 100% description coverage for all four parameters (page, sort, type, per_page), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as the effect of 'type' on the repo list or pagination defaults, but the schema already covers them adequately.

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 'List' with resource 'repositories' and scope 'for the authenticated user', making the core function clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like github_search_repos, though the word 'authenticated' implies it lists the user's own accessible repositories, distinguishing it from global search.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_search_repos or github_get_repo. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints beyond the phrase 'for the authenticated user', which indirectly suggests authentication but doesn't specify use cases or trade-offs.

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