list_organization_repositories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It does not mention pagination limits, authentication requirements, or the return format. It does list the pagination parameters (page, per_page) which hint at paging behavior, but it doesn't describe what happens on missing permissions or invalid org names. The description is minimal and does not add context beyond the obvious.

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 highly concise, with a one-sentence purpose and a list of parameters. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, but it omits critical usage context like when to use it. While concise, completeness is sacrificed.

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?

The output schema is present, which helps agents understand the return structure, and the pagination parameters suggest a paginated API. However, given the lack of annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify authentication requirements, error handling, or how results are ordered. For a list operation, an agent would benefit from knowing whether it returns a full list or paginated results and any rate limits.

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 for the absence of parameter details. However, it only lists parameter names without explaining their purpose or constraints. The schema provides titles and defaults, but no descriptions, so the agent must infer that 'page' and 'per_page' control pagination. The description does not articulate the expected format or limits for these parameters.

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 the resource ('repositories in an organization'), which is specific and distinct from similar tools like _list_repositories (which presumably lists user's repositories) or _get_repository (which fetches a single repository). The tool name already differentiates it, but the description reinforces the organizational 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 implies usage by specifying the 'org' parameter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like _list_repositories or _get_repository. Given the sibling tools, an agent might need additional guidance on distinguishing organizational repositories from personal ones, though the context may be inferred from the 'org' parameter.

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