github_list_repos

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the auth-dependent visibility scope (own repos plus visible orgs), but omits pagination behavior, ordering, error handling, and whether results are read-only.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The scope is stated immediately and nothing is repeated.

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 two-parameter list tool, the description covers the high-level scope but leaves gaps around pagination, per-page behavior, and return shape. It is adequate to begin a call but not fully complete without annotations or an output schema.

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 only 50%: the `type` parameter has a schema description, but `perPage` does not. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema and does not explain how `perPage` controls pagination or how the parenthetical scope maps to `type`.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List repositories') plus an explicit scope ('visible to the authenticated GitHub token'). The sibling tools operate on files, directories, issues, pull requests, search, or database objects, so an agent can immediately distinguish this tool's purpose.

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 when to use it by naming the token-scoped repo listing, but it does not give explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or name any alternative tool. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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