list_stargazers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states 'List' and provides no details on pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or whether private stargazers are included. The minimal phrasing offers little beyond the tool's name.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and immediately states the purpose. Every word serves a function, making it highly efficient.

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 listing tool with no output schema and minimal parameters, the one-line description is minimally adequate. However, it omits details about pagination behavior, return format, and any potential edge cases (e.g., empty repos, repo not found). This leaves some gaps for an agent invoking the 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 0%, yet the description gives no parameter-level information. While 'owner' and 'repo' are somewhat self-explanatory, and 'page'/'per_page' imply pagination, the description does not explicitly explain their roles or any constraints. The burden of compensation is unmet.

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 'List users who have starred a repository' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying that this tool returns stargazers for a given repository. It also distinguishes from sibling 'list_starred_repositories' (which lists repos starred by a user), removing ambiguity about direction of the relationship.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks explicit exclusions or mentions of other similar listing tools. The usage context is merely implied by the action of listing stargazers.

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