boj_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List your GitHub repositories' but doesn't clarify what 'your' means (e.g., authenticated user's repos, includes forks, visibility settings), whether it's paginated, rate-limited, or requires specific permissions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral details like pagination or authentication, or output format. For a tool that likely returns a list of repositories, more context is needed to use it effectively without trial and error.

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 input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage (no schema descriptions). The tool description doesn't mention any parameters, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. It doesn't explain what 'per_page' or 'sort' do, their defaults, or how they affect the listing, leaving parameters semantically unclear.

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') and resource ('your GitHub repositories'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling GitHub tools like 'boj_github_get_repo' or 'boj_github_search_code', which would require more specificity about scope or filtering capabilities.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites (e.g., authentication), context for listing repositories (e.g., personal vs. organizational), or comparison to sibling tools like 'boj_github_get_repo' for single repos or 'boj_github_search_code' for code-based searches.

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