list_repos

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations by explaining that the endpoint choice depends on the owner's account type and the failure modes of each endpoint (/orgs 404s on a person; /users hides org private repos). This helps an agent predict behavior before calling.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the key behavioral nuance. The trailing 'See #354' is mildly unhelpful as a dangling reference, but the overall structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover the read-only safety profile, the description covers the main behavioral complexity: owner-type-dependent endpoint selection and the caller-omission case. It leaves pagination and sorting to the schema defaults, which is acceptable for a listing tool.

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 50%, with owner and per_page already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the owner semantics by explaining the endpoint selection, which adds context, but it does not clarify page or sort meaning or compensate fully for the undocumented 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 states a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('repositories') with clear scoping to a user, an organisation, or the caller. It immediately distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like list_releases, list_tags, and list_labels, which all target different resources.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool and how owner type affects behavior, noting that omitting owner targets the caller and that /orgs vs /users depends on account type. It does not name explicit alternative tools, but there is no direct sibling that also lists repositories, so the context is sufficient.

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