search_projects

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals no traits such as read-only status, rate limits, pagination, or side effects. The term 'search' implies safety, but that is left to inference. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the operation's purpose.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the structure immediately communicates the tool's purpose without repetition.

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 tool with one plain-string parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient to guide correct usage. It tells the agent what the query does and which fields are searched. The only minor omissions are details about result format or pagination, which are not critical for such a simple search interface.

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 schema only provides 'Search term,' but the description enriches this by clarifying that the query matches against project names, READMEs, package descriptions, and dependency names. This tells the agent what information the parameter should contain and how to use it effectively. While the description doesn't add syntax details, the 100% schema coverage and this additional context justify a score above baseline.

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 uses the specific verb 'search' and defines the resource as project names, READMEs, package descriptions, and dependency names. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_projects and get_project, which use different verbs and scopes. A concise, non-redundant statement beyond the tool name.

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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as list_projects, find_opportunities, or git_overview. The description only states what it searches, not when an agent should use it or which alternatives exist for specific cases. There is no mention of exclusions or disclaimers.

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