search_repos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the search is limited to public repositories and lists the return fields, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention rate limits, pagination, or any side effects. The 'public' qualifier and output hints provide some transparency, but the description is not fully explicit.

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, informative sentence that front-loads the core purpose and mentions the return fields. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for a search 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?

Given the 100% schema coverage and the description's mention of output fields, the tool is adequately documented for basic use. However, it lacks any mention of authentication needs, rate limits, or guidance on combining with siblings. The absence of an output schema means the description should clarify expected return structure more, but it does at least hint at the data returned.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema—only noting 'keyword/topic' for query, which is redundant with the schema's description. It does not explain parameter interactions or advanced syntax, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 searches public GitHub repositories by keyword/topic, which is a specific verb and resource. It also mentions what is returned (stars, last-updated, license). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_repo_details or suggest_stack, but their purposes are obviously distinct enough that a capable agent could infer the difference.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of scenarios where search_repos is appropriate or where get_repo_details or suggest_stack should be used instead. The agent is left to infer usage context from the name and purpose alone.

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