github_list_repos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the authentication context ('authenticated user') and the scope ('owned by or accessible'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting defaults, or explicitly state that it is a read-only operation. Minimal but non-contradictory disclosure.

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 sentence of about 10 words, direct and free of redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and scope, earning a high score for conciseness and structure.

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?

The tool is simple with only three optional parameters and no output schema. The description captures the core action and scope, but it omits details about return format and pagination behavior. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 only 33% (only 'type' has a description). The description does not mention any parameters (sort, type, per_page) or add meaning beyond the schema. It fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving parameter semantics largely unexplained.

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 tool's purpose: 'List repositories owned by or accessible to the authenticated user.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('repositories'), and the scope ('owned by or accessible to the authenticated user') distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_search_repos and github_get_repo.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need the authenticated user's repositories), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or comparison with sibling tools is provided, so guidance is only implied.

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