list_repositories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Lista' implies a read-only operation, and the scope is clear, but the description does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication needs. These are partially covered by the schema's page/per_page parameters, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists the key capabilities. It is concise and contains no redundant words or filler.

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 straightforward list tool, the description covers the essential purpose and scope, and the schema handles parameter details. It could have mentioned pagination limits or return value structure, but the absence of an output schema and the self-evident output type (repository list) make this acceptable.

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?

All six parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level summary of filtering and sorting, but it does not provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema already states.

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 function: listing all public and private repositories from the user's GitHub account. The verb 'Lista' is specific, and the scope 'de tu cuenta de GitHub' distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_repositories (which searches broader) and get_repository (which fetches a single repo).

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 implies when to use this tool ('de tu cuenta de GitHub') and mentions filtering/sorting capabilities, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as search_repositories. There is no direct 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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