search_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral context. It states the tool uses the GitHub code search API, but it does not describe return format, rate limits, authentication requirements, or the scope of the search (e.g., default branch only). The description is too terse to convey meaningful 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose without any extraneous detail. Every word contributes value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 is relatively simple with three well-documented parameters, but the description lacks information about the output format (no output schema) and does not differentiate its usage from sibling file-listing tools. While adequate for basic understanding, it is not fully complete in the absence of annotations and an output 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 100%, with all three parameters (repo, query, max_results) described in the input schema. The description does not add any extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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: searching for code within a specific repository using the GitHub code search API. It uses a specific verb ('search') and a distinct resource ('code within a specific repository'), which differentiates it from sibling tools that list repos, files, commits, or issues.

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 implies when to use the tool (when needing to search code within a repository) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention that list_files or get_file are better for browsing files, nor does it specify scenarios where search_code is the preferred choice.

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