search_repos

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

The description discloses the behavior (searching and returning matching repos) and indicates a read-only action. However, it does not mention potential side effects, return format, or error cases, though these are not critical for a search tool.

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 concise and focused, containing only the essential information: the tool's purpose and the parameter definition. No unnecessary words or redundant details.

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, the description provides sufficient context: it specifies what is searched (repo names and descriptions) and what the keyword is. No additional context needed for correct usage.

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 description explicitly defines the 'keyword' parameter as the search term, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema type. Since the parameter coverage is 100% and the description enriches it, a score above baseline is warranted.

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 repository names and descriptions by keyword. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools (list_repos lists all repos, get_readme fetches a specific repo's readme).

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_repos or get_readme. The intent is implied but not stated, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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