search_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the basic function and location (GitHub) but does not mention any behavioral traits such as result limits, pagination, or permission requirements. The example adds context but no extra transparency beyond the core operation.

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 with no filler. Every word adds value, including the example use case and the optional filter note. Ideal 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?

The tool is simple (three parameters) and an output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. The description covers the essential purpose and the main filter. It loses a point because parameter semantics for query/limit are absent, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a basic search 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 only clarifies the 'language' parameter ('filter by programming language'), leaving 'query' and 'limit' without additional meaning. The one helpful hint is insufficient for a zero-coverage schema.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('code repositories on GitHub'), with a concrete example of use (finding implementations of papers/libraries). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_papers or search_trends, which target other entity types.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('to find the implementation of a paper or a library') and mentions an optional filter (programming language). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a full 5.

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