github_list_repos

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose that this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List'), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (beyond per_page in schema), or what the output looks like (e.g., list of repo objects). It adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 core purpose ('List repositories') without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover authentication needs, rate limits, pagination beyond per_page, error handling, or output format. For a tool with moderate complexity and no structured safety hints, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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%, providing full parameter documentation. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying a target (user/organization) for the 'username' parameter. It doesn't explain interactions between parameters or usage nuances, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('List') and resource ('repositories'), specifying it's for a user or organization. It distinguishes from siblings like github_get_repo (which gets a single repo) and github_search_code (which searches code content), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like github_list_issues (which lists issues, 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare with github_search_code for broader searches, or explain when to use type filters. The description is purely functional without context.

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