get_github_repos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the $0.01 USDC cost via x402, which is a critical behavioral trait, and mentions the data comes from the latest daily scan, implying freshness. However, it does not mention any side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or error behaviors. The cost is the most significant disclosure, but other operational details are missing, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise, consisting of two well-structured sentences. It front-loads the primary action and sorting, then lists the language filter and the returned fields, ending with the cost. Every sentence adds necessary information with zero fluff, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 relatively simple with only two optional parameters and no output schema. The description compensates by listing all the return fields, which is helpful. It also discloses the cost, which is important for an agent to decide whether to invoke. However, it does not mention any prerequisites like authentication for the x402 payment, or what happens if the daily scan is unavailable. Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description is largely complete, but a few operational details are missing.

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 schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (limit with range and default, language with example and case-insensitivity). The description's mention of 'Filter by programming language' adds no new information beyond what the schema already states. It does not supplement the schema in any meaningful way, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 retrieves top trending GitHub repos from a daily scan, sorted by stars, with optional language filtering. It lists the specific fields returned, which makes its purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_github_digest or get_github_history, leaving some ambiguity about which tool to use for related but distinct queries.

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 does not mention any preconditions or scenarios where this tool would be preferred over get_github_digest or get_github_history. The only hint is the 'top trending' and 'daily scan' phrasing, which implies it is for current trending data, but this is not stated explicitly. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.

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