listRepositories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the default target is the authenticated user's repositories and that org switches the scope, but it doesn't disclose result shape, ordering, or pagination behavior beyond schema fields.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences clearly convey the operation, the two scopes, and pagination support. 'Supports page/per_page' is slightly redundant with the schema, but it does not add clutter.

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 simple read-only list operation with optional org, page, and per_page parameters, the description covers default behavior and org switching. With no output schema, the return format is not described, but the expected list of repositories is strongly implied by the tool name and sibling 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the org parameter's role and the no-argument default, but this adds little beyond the schema's 'instead of own' phrasing for org and the explicit descriptions for page and per_page.

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 the specific verb 'List' and resource 'repositories', and clarifies two list scopes: 'authenticated user's repositories' vs 'organization repositories'. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative such as getRepository, but the plural resource makes the intent unmistakable.

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 states clear selection logic: without arguments list the authenticated user's repositories; with org list organization repositories. It doesn't mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but for a straightforward list operation this is sufficient context.

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