search_repos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that the tool searches; it does not mention how a limit is applied, whether pagination exists, what fields are returned, rate limits, or authentication needs. This is a minimal description that leaves important runtime behavior undisclosed.

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 that immediately states the action and resource. There is no wasted text or redundancy; every word contributes to the core meaning. Appropriate for a simple search tool.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the agent can expect. It only says 'search' and does not specify the result structure, the default result count, sorting behavior, or error conditions. For a tool that will return a list of repositories, this is incomplete context for an AI agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 does explain that the query parameter represents a 'keyword,' but it adds no meaning about the limit parameter, its default of 5, or how results are ordered/filtered. The description provides only marginal insight beyond the raw parameter names.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search GitHub for repositories matching a keyword.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on individual repositories (e.g., get_repo_info, list_pull_requests). The scope is unambiguous as a repository discovery/search action.

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 phrase 'matching a keyword' establishes a clear usage context for searching across repositories. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the tool's search-oriented purpose is clear and distinct from the repo-specific sibling tools. Some implicit guidance comes from the sibling list, but the description itself is adequate for basic use.

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