Github User Repos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the critical constraint that only public repositories are returned, which is a behavioral detail not captured in annotations. However, it omits any mention of rate limits, pagination, or behavior for non-existent users. With annotations present, the description contributes some value but not rich behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and it immediately conveys the core operation without redundancy.

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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter), the presence of an output schema, and annotations that cover safety and openness, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states the action and the scope (public repos). The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of pagination or rate limits, but these are likely handled by the output schema and are not essential for basic invocation.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the username parameter. The description partially compensates by indicating that the parameter represents a GitHub user, but it does not clarify formatting (e.g., exact username format), case sensitivity, or whether it expects a handle vs. an ID. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the low schema coverage.

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 action (List), the resource (public GitHub repositories), and the target (a user). It distinguishes from siblings like github_user_info (which would return user profile details) and github_repo_commits (which lists commits). The verb+resource combination is unambiguous and specific.

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. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or contrasts with sibling tools. An agent would have no context for selecting this over github_user_info or other repo-related tools.

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