List gists

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a subtle and important behavior: if the token lacks gist:read scope, private/unlisted gists are silently omitted and only public gists are returned, rather than an error. It also clarifies that the result is summaries without file contents, adding genuine behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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 with no filler. The primary purpose and scope variants are front-loaded, and the second sentence delivers a critical distinction (summaries vs. file contents) and an important auth-related caveat. Every sentence 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?

Given the strong input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers what is needed: purpose, scope variants, return granularity, the get_gist alternative, and a hidden failure mode. Nothing important for correct invocation or interpretation of results is left unexplained.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a detailed description, including the meaning of scope values, username behavior, and pagination constraints. The tool description reinforces the scope variants and adds the file-contents caveat, but it does not substantially extend parameter-level semantics beyond the 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('gists on the Opengist instance') and enumerates the distinct scope modes: your own, a specific user's, all public, liked, and forked. It also differentiates from get_gist by noting the result contains summaries without file contents, making sibling distinction clear.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool for listing gists in several scopes, and explicitly routes the user to get_gist when file contents are needed. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer search_gists or list_gist_forks, but the context is clear enough for most selection decisions.

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