eng.query_repos

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 traits. It states the tool returns details but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a query 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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and output. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant phrases. However, it could be slightly expanded with usage context without harming 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?

For a simple two-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and some output details. However, it omits useful context like whether the tool is read-only, pagination behavior, or authorization requirements. It is adequate but not thorough.

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% description coverage for both parameters ('query' and 'language'), so the schema already explains their meaning. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level information, meeting the baseline of 3. It mentions output details (CI status, deploy keys) but that does not enhance parameter understanding.

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), resource (code repositories), and filters (by name or programming language). It differentiates from sibling tools like eng.read_source_file (which reads a specific file) and eng.manage_infrastructure (which manages infrastructure), making it unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or any alternative tools. The agent must infer the context from the tool's name and description alone, which is insufficient.

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