list_github_repos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adds useful context: it explains the meaning of the `publishes_mocks: true` flag and the consequence for publishing (updates existing mock vs creating another). It does not detail return format or auth requirements, but for a simple read-only list operation the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, action rule, flag meaning, and environment context. The key instruction is front-loaded, and there is no redundant wording.

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 2-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, user interaction requirement, key flag semantics, and when it is most useful. Minor gaps like pagination behavior or auth prerequisites are not critical enough to lower further.

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 description does not explain either parameter. `owner` has a schema description, but `limit` is only constrained by default/min/max with no stated meaning (e.g., number of repos to return). At 50% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented parameter, and it does not.

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 the user's GitHub repositories') and immediately clarifies the purpose: to ask the user which repo to publish mocks to. It distinguishes itself from publish-related siblings by emphasizing it is only a listing and decision-support step, not an action that publishes.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use the tool ('clients with no shell, where you cannot run `gh repo list`') and gives an explicit behavioral rule ('Never pick one yourself'). It does not name an alternative sibling tool or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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