github_search_code

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

The description only states the action and resource, with no disclosures about behavior such as case sensitivity, pagination, rate limits, or result structure. No annotations exist to supplement this information.

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, concise sentence with no extraneous words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include more context without losing 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?

Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the tool definition is sparse. While the core function is clear, critical details about return values and usage constraints are missing.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The parameter names ('query', 'repo', 'language') are somewhat self-explanatory, but no additional details are provided about format, constraints, or expected values.

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 'search' and the resource 'code across GitHub repositories', making the tool's purpose straightforward. While there are other search tools in the sibling list, none are specific to GitHub code search, so differentiation is not critical.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative search tools (e.g., perplexity_search, mem0_search). There is no mention of prerequisites, scope limitations, or when not to use it.

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