github_search_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 mentions that the tool returns repo name, description, stars, and URL, which provides some transparency about output. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor disclose potential rate limits or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately state the tool's purpose and return value. Every word adds value, with no repetition or filler content.

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 simple search tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool searches, and what fields are returned. The schema covers parameter details. The lack of annotations is a minor gap, but the tool is straightforward, so the description is largely complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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, with descriptions for all three parameters (query, sort, limit). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating that search can be done by keyword, language, or topic, which is already in the query parameter description. Therefore, the baseline score 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's function: 'Search GitHub repositories by keyword, language, or topic.' It specifies the resource (repositories) and the action (search), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like github_read_file and github_list_issues, which handle different operations.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when searching for GitHub repositories by keyword, language, or topic. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool offers search functionality, so the use case is well-defined.

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