find_similar_repos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It notes it's a 'Free feature', suggesting no cost, but does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, or any side effects. It does explain that topic is auto-detected from repo.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded with purpose. The second sentence adds value but could be integrated. No wasted words, but some might prefer more compact.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the purpose and basic usage. It could mention that results are list of repos, but not required for a simple search.

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 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'repo' and 'topic'. The description restates the schema info.

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 verb 'Find', the resource 'repos similar to yours', and the method 'by topic/niche'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_repo and compare_repos by focusing on similarity based on topic.

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 mentions 'Learn from what they do well' implying a use case for competitive analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings, which would be helpful.

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