list_repos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Lista' implies a read-only operation and the authenticated-user scope is disclosed, but it does not mention pagination behavior (only one page returned per call, default 20), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. Acceptable but not rich.

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?

A single, precise sentence in Portuguese that leads with the action and resource. No filler, no redundancy with the schema. Every word earns its place.

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 listing tool with 2 well-documented parameters this is largely adequate, but the output shape is not mentioned (no output schema) and pagination semantics are left implicit. It lacks any annotation backstop, so slightly more disclosure would be appropriate.

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 both parameters are already documented with constraints: 'sort' has an enum and default, 'per_page' has min, max, and default. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is fine — baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('repositórios do usuário autenticado'), clarifying both the action and the scoping to the authenticated user's own repos. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_repo (single repo), list_issues (issues), and search_code (code search).

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 intended use is implied by the purpose: call this when you need the authenticated user's repository list. However, it gives no explicit exclusions or nod to alternatives, e.g., no pointer to get_repo for a single repository or search_code for broader discovery.

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