Answer natural-language questions grounded only in indexed GitHub docs and code; return cited answers with permalinks or answerable:false when sources do not cover the question.
Answer a question end-to-end with citations, grounded only in indexed sources.
Returns answerable: false instead of guessing when the sources don't cover it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| question | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: it discloses the refusal semantics ('returns answerable: false instead of guessing') and that output is citation-grounded, which an agent cannot learn from the annotations.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and followed immediately by the notable edge-case behavior. No filler or restated information.
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?
With no output schema, the description partially covers the return shape by naming citations and the answerable flag, which is the most important thing an agent needs to branch on. It does not describe citation format or answer structure, a minor gap for a single-parameter QA 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% and the single 'question' parameter has no description, so the description carries the burden but adds nothing about it. The parameter is self-evident by name and type, which keeps this at baseline rather than below it, but no format or scope guidance (e.g. natural-language length) is provided.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Answer a question end-to-end with citations, grounded only in indexed sources'), which clearly distinguishes it from the snippet-returning search_knowledge_base sibling. It stops short of naming or explicitly contrasting the alternative, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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 'end-to-end with citations' framing implies you use this when you want a synthesized answer rather than raw search results, and the answerable:false behavior implies a fallback path. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative is given, so usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.