get_github_app_repositories

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic function, omitting important details like whether the result includes all repos (pagination), required permissions, or any side effects. The description adds minimal value beyond the name.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and to the point, covering the essential purpose efficiently.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It does not mention the return format, pagination, or relationship to sibling tools like 'get_github_app_repository_branches', which would provide fuller context.

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 one parameter with 100% coverage, describing 'github_app_id' as 'GitHub App ID'. The description does not add any further meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get repositories accessible by a GitHub App' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (repositories accessible by a GitHub App). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_github_app' and 'get_github_app_repository_branches' by specifying the exact scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as having a valid GitHub App ID, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others like 'list_github_apps' or 'get_github_app_repository_branches'.

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