gh_list_repos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, so safety is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond that, but does not contradict anything. It doesn't reveal much about pagination or response structure, but the project's schema and output schema likely cover some. Given annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be more structured by explicitly listing parameters or giving a sentence about usage.

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 tool with 5 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not clarify the meaning of each parameter, nor does it indicate the capabilities like filtering or sorting. Output schema exists but not described, leaving the agent to guess specifics. Needs more detail.

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 0%, meaning the description provides the only semantic info for parameters. The description lists 'type: all, owner, member, public, private, fork.' but does not explain 'sort', 'direction', 'per_page', or 'username' beyond what their names imply. That is insufficient to guide correct use, especially with no enums or descriptions in 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 states the purpose ('List repositories for a user or organization') but does not distinguish from the sibling tools like gh_search_repos or gh_get_repo. The type list is a hint but not sufficient to differentiate clearly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given. It implies listing repos for a user/org, but doesn't mention when this is preferred over gh_search_repos or gh_get_repo. Context is minimal.

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