search_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (likely), rate limits, scope (public/private repos), or result form. The minimal description fails to inform the agent of behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 very concise (one sentence), but it is too minimal to be informative. It lacks structure such as front-loading key details, and every sentence (only one) earns its place, but it fails to cover necessary information.

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 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination, search behavior (e.g., exact vs. fuzzy), or error modes. The output schema is not documented in the description, assuming the agent infers from open-ended schema.

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 0%, but the description adds no meaning to the parameters 'query' and 'repo.' It does not explain what valid queries look like, how 'repo' filters, or default behavior. The schema already provides types and required flags, so no added value.

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 'Search for code in GitHub repositories,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_file_contents' or 'create_or_update_file' that also involve code, and it lacks scope details (e.g., all repos vs. owned repos).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_issues' for issues, 'get_file_contents' for specific files). The description implies usage for code searches but provides no exclusions or context.

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