suggest_stack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it runs 'several targeted GitHub searches' (including curated/awesome-list queries) and returns a ranked shortlist, which is the core behavior. However, it does not state that it is a read-only operation, nor does it mention potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or that multiple API calls may be made. For a search tool this is adequate but not rich.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler. It front-loads the input requirement ('Given a plain-language description...') and quickly explains the action and output. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it an exemplar of conciseness.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return format. It states that it returns 'a ranked shortlist of existing projects/libraries,' which gives a general idea but does not specify the structure (e.g., whether it returns names, URLs, descriptions, or full repo objects). It also does not mention error conditions or rate limits. Given the relative simplicity of the tool and the presence of sibling tools, this is adequate but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for the 'description' parameter (plain-language description of what you're about to build) which is also in the schema, so it is largely redundant. It does not add any extra meaning for 'language' or 'limit_per_query' beyond their schema descriptions. The description provides no additional parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb (runs GitHub searches) and resource (existing projects/libraries to reuse), and it distinguishes itself from siblings: search_repos for general repo searching and get_repo_details for repo details. The tool's role as a 'suggest' tool that returns a ranked shortlist of reusable libraries is unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you have a plain-language description of what you're building and want to find existing libraries to reuse. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., 'use search_repos for a direct repo search') or provide when-not-to-use guidance. This makes it clear but not fully explicit in routing the agent to the best sibling.

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