github_list_repositories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'List Git repositories' which implies read-only, but does not disclose pagination behavior (despite cursor/limit params), authentication requirements, or whether only public repos or all accessible repos are returned. The presence of cursor in the schema hints at pagination, but the description does not explain it.

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 is front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not clarify what happens when 'owner' is omitted (likely defaults to authenticated user), nor does it mention return format or sorting. The schema covers parameters but the description lacks behavioral context.

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 100% with each parameter having a clear description (limit, owner, cursor). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the action (List), the resource (Git repositories), and the scope (for a user or organization). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like github_get_repository (single repo) and github_list_issues (issues).

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?

Description implies usage for listing repositories of a user or organization, but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use this tool. No exclusions or preference guidance is provided.

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