GitMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'List repositories on GitHub' implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens if the 'user' parameter is omitted. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate behavioral 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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain authentication needs, return format, error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a GitHub API tool that likely requires authentication, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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%, with the single parameter 'user' documented as 'Username to list repos for'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'List repositories on GitHub' clearly states the action (list) and resource (repositories on GitHub). It distinguishes from siblings like 'github_create_repo' (create vs list) and 'gitea_list_repos' (GitHub vs Gitea platform). However, it doesn't specify scope (e.g., all repos vs user-specific), which prevents a perfect score.

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 whether it lists all GitHub repos, user-specific repos, or how it differs from 'gitea_list_repos' for similar functionality on a different platform. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references are provided.

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