list_starred_repositories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'List', which implies a read-only operation, but fails to disclose authentication requirements, whether another user's stars are public, pagination behavior, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 that starts with the verb and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, plus three parameters with only one documented in the schema, the description leaves critical gaps: pagination defaults, authentication nuances, and return type are all absent. For a simple list tool, this is still incomplete because the parameters are not explained.

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 coverage is only 33% (only username has a description). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema—'or another user' merely restates the existing schema description for username. page and per_page remain completely undocumented in both schema and description, so the description does not compensate for the low 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 specifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'repositories starred by the authenticated user (or another user)', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_stargazers (which lists users who starred a repo) and search_repositories. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context by indicating the tool works for the authenticated user or another user via the username parameter. It implies usage context without explicitly naming alternatives, aligning with 'clear context, no exclusions.'

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