List repositories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the owner-omission default behavior, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering. With annotations carrying the safety burden, 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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the scope statement is front-loaded ahead of the conditional default. Every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, but for a simple filtered-list tool with full parameter coverage and read-only annotations, the description covers the one real ambiguity (what happens without owner). It could mention pagination expectations, but nothing essential for correct invocation is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so page, limit, owner and is_org are all documented in the schema (baseline 3). The description goes beyond that by explaining the non-obvious default semantics of omitting owner, which the schema's 'Repository owner' note does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List repositories') plus the scope of ownership (user or organization). It does not differentiate from close siblings like search_repositories or get_repository, so an agent must infer the difference, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

'Omit owner to list the authenticated user's repositories' gives a concrete, actionable rule for selecting the parameterless form. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. search_repositories for keyword filtering) or stating when not to use it.

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