List the forks of a gist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the semantic detail that the result is the set of gists forked from a specific gist, but it does not disclose additional behavior such as ordering or pagination beyond what the schema already provides.

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, clear sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and the object, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable.

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 read-only listing tool with rich annotations, a complete output schema, and fully documented parameters, the description is mostly sufficient. It could be more complete by explicitly distinguishing this from sibling tools, but nothing essential about invocation or return values is missing.

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 the schema already documents gistId, page, and perPage meaningfully, including the note that gistId is not the title. The description only reinforces the 'given gist' relationship and adds no new parameter-level information.

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 ('List') and resource ('gists that were forked from the given gist'), clearly identifying the operation and its target. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_gists and fork_gist via the 'forked from' relationship, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_gists, get_gist, or fork_gist. The intended use is only implied by 'given gist', with no exclusions or context on choosing it over sibling tools.

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