_list_repositories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only listing and the user-scoping behavior, but it does not mention authentication requirements, pagination behavior, error cases, or whether private and forked repositories are included.

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 opening sentence gives the core purpose, and the args list is compact. The parameter explanations are minimal and not bloated, though they are somewhat redundant with the input schema.

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 list operation with all-optional parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not clarify authentication expectations, pagination edge cases, or how this tool relates to the organization-repo sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for username ('None for authenticated user'), but page and per_page are only restated by name, relying on the schema's defaults and types. Partial compensation, not complete.

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 clear verb ('List'), resource ('repositories'), and scope ('for a user or the authenticated user'). It is specific enough to distinguish from organization-repository siblings, though it does not explicitly name the alternative organization-scoped tools.

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 like _list_organization_repositories or list_organization_repositories, and no exclusions or conditions are stated. The only usage hint is that username can be None for the authenticated user, but this does not help choose among sibling tools.

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