list_repositories

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool returns specific fields (name, visibility, description, URL) and implies authentication is required by stating 'authenticated user'. However, it does not explicitly mention that the operation is read-only, nor discuss rate limits or pagination behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 two short sentences that front-load the core function first, followed by usage examples and return fields. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, when to use it, and return fields. It does not explicitly mention pagination or the distinction between public/private repos, but the schema covers pagination parameters, and the tool's simplicity means the description is largely sufficient. A brief note on pagination or authentication failure would enhance completeness.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both page and perPage, including defaults and bounds. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool lists the authenticated user's GitHub repositories, using a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('repositorios del usuario autenticado'). It also provides scope (authenticated user) and examples of user queries that should trigger this tool, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_issues or create_repository.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: when the user asks 'what repositories do I have', wants to see their repo list, or enumerate their projects. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternative tool names, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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