list_org_repos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and provides a docs link, but does not disclose authentication requirements, default visibility, pagination behavior, or response shape.

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, front-loaded sentence with a docs link, containing no wasted words. It is concise and appropriately sized for the tool.

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 6-parameter paginated list endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, a one-line description is insufficient. It lacks return format details, pagination/type defaults, and auth/visibility context, despite the external docs link.

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 already describes 4 of 6 parameters (67% coverage) with enums and an example for org. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, and page/per_page remain undocumented in both the description and schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('repositories in a GitHub organization'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_repository or search_repos, and the docs link reinforces the exact endpoint.

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 the obvious use case—listing repositories for a given org—but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. Sibling tools like list_installation_repos_for_authenticated_user or search_repos are not mentioned.

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