gist_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List your GitHub Gists' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond what's in the schema, or what 'your' means in terms of user context. This leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 perfectly concise at just three words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted language. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource ownership, and resource type.

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 listing tool with 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it doesn't address key contextual elements like authentication scope ('your' gists vs all gists), sorting/filtering capabilities, or what information is returned about each gist, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both 'perPage' and 'page'. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema documentation, though the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter usage or relationships.

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 'List your GitHub Gists' clearly states the action (list) and resource (GitHub Gists), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gist_starred' or 'gist_get' which also retrieve gist information, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'gist_starred' (lists starred gists) and 'gist_get' (gets a specific gist), there's no indication of when this general listing tool is preferred over more specific retrieval methods.

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