list_repositories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format ('trimmed repo records') and fields, implying a read operation. But it does not explicitly state safety (read-only), authentication needs, rate limits, or potential side effects. While the content suggests a safe list, the lack of explicit behavioral disclosure lowers the score.

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 two sentences: one for purpose and one for parameter/return details. No redundant information, no fluff. It is front-loaded with the main action and efficiently packed with necessary details.

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 the tool's simplicity (listing repos with three parameters), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, and return fields. The presence of an output schema does not relieve the description of explaining what is returned, and it does so adequately. For the complexity level, it is fully complete.

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 0%, meaning the JSON schema lacks descriptions. The tool description compensates fully: it explains each parameter (owner, owner_type, type_filter) with clear semantics and acceptable values, and also describes the return fields. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'List repositories for an org or user.' This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_repository (single repo), list_team_repos (team repos), and others that focus on branches, secrets, or pull requests.

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 explains the parameters and their role (owner, owner_type, type_filter), giving context for usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_repository for a single repo, or list_org_webhooks for webhooks). The sibling list is available but not leveraged in the description.

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