github_list_repos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions authentication requirement ('for authenticated user'), which is useful, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like pagination handling (implied by per_page param), rate limits, error conditions, or return format. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with core purpose. Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a list operation that likely returns structured data, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format (e.g., list of repo objects), pagination behavior (beyond per_page param), or error handling, leaving significant gaps for agent usage.

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% (per_page is fully documented in schema), so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, but doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('GitHub repositories'), specifying scope ('for authenticated user'). It distinguishes from siblings like github_get_pr (which fetches specific PRs) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from github_list_prs (which lists PRs, not repos).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fs_list_files (for local files) or github_list_prs (for PRs). The description implies it's for listing repositories, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites beyond authentication.

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