list_starred_repos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the return shape (array of repository objects with listed fields), sort semantics, and pagination controls, which are all valuable context beyond the schema. It does not mention authentication scope requirements or rate-limit caveats, but it is still quite transparent for a simple list operation.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and usage nuances. It includes a documentation link for deeper reference without unnecessary fluff, making every sentence earn its place.

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 an output schema and annotations, the description provides essential behavioral information: what it returns (array with specific fields), how to sort, and how to paginate. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, and the docs link covers any residual details.

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 50% (page and per_page lack descriptions), but the description compensates by stating 'Paginate with page and per_page' and clarifying the meaning of sort options. This adds semantic value beyond the schema for the previously undocumented parameters, while the schema already handles sort and direction.

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 resource ('repositories starred by the authenticated user'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like star_repo, unstar_repo, check_repo_starred, and search_repos by focusing on the user's own starred repositories.

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 clearly conveys when to use this tool—when you need a list of the authenticated user's starred repositories. It also explains sorting and pagination options, giving context on how to tailor the request. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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