github_search_stars

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses useful traits: offline/local execution, zero dependency, BM25 hybrid scoring, and sub-5ms latency. It does not mention side-effect status, return format, or whether results are sorted, so transparency is partial.

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 concise: two sentences with the core function front-loaded. The second sentence adds useful performance and implementation context, though it is slightly promotional.

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 description plus fully documented schema is enough for basic invocation. However, there is no output schema and no return-value semantics, and the tool is not placed relative to sibling tools, leaving some context gaps for an agent choosing among many starred-repo tools.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, though mentioning BM25 and weighted field scoring gives some context for how query and min_score are interpreted.

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 identifies the resource ('starred repositories') and the activity ('concept & problem-to-solution discovery'), making it clear this is a search/discovery tool. It does not explicitly use the verb 'search' or differentiate itself from siblings like github_list_starred, so it stops 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?

The description implies usage for fast, local discovery across starred repositories, partly distinguishing it from simple listing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_list_starred or github_recommend_stack, nor does it provide exclusion conditions.

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