related

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that results come with evidence and that package-linked uncloned repos are appended, which is useful context. However, it does not explain `include_unconfirmed` semantics, permissions, limits, or what confirmation means.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and is only two sentences. The second sentence is a long enum list, but every entry is directly relevant to the optional edge_type parameter. There is little wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be explained in detail. Still, the description leaves `include_unconfirmed` undefined and does not clarify edge-type semantics, which are important for correct invocation of this no-annotation, 3-parameter tool.

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. It usefully enumerates the allowed `edge_type` values and `repo` is self-evident, but `include_unconfirmed` is never explained and the edge-type list does not describe how filtering behaves.

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 states that it finds repos related to `repo` with evidence and also includes the org's uncloned repos linked by packages. That is a specific retrieval resource with a clear scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as `links` or `find_similar`, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternative-tool routing despite several plausible siblings like `links`, `find_similar`, and `org_packages`. The edge_type list hints at filtering, but it does not tell the agent when this tool should be chosen instead of another.

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