github_list_repos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates read-only behavior (listing) and implies authentication. However, it does not discuss pagination behavior (per_page parameter), rate limits, or error cases (e.g., invalid owner). The description is truthful but lacks depth on edge cases.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose and scope, and the second lists the return fields. Every word adds value; no redundancy exists.

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 endpoint with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the core functionality and return fields. However, it could mention that results are paginated (implied by per_page) and that the output is an array, but the schema covers per_page details. Minor gap in not stating the return data structure.

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 100% with descriptions already explaining each parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters thoroughly, including the owner parameter's omission behavior.

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 ('GitHub repositories'), and the scope ('for the authenticated user or a specific user/org'). It also lists the return fields (name, description, stars, language, visibility), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_get_repo_info (single repo) and github_list_issues (different resource).

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 indicates when to use the owner parameter ('Omit to list your own repos') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Sibling tool names are provided but not referenced, so an agent has no guidance on choosing between this and github_get_repo_info for a specific repository.

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