github.code_search

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 mentions the token scope requirement, which is valuable context, but does not address rate limits, pagination behavior, or search syntax limitations.

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 succinct sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides a necessary authentication detail. No wasted words, information is front-loaded.

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 relatively simple, and the description covers the core purpose and a key prerequisite (token scope). However, it omits guidance on search query syntax (e.g., qualifiers) and any rate limit or pagination behavior, leaving gaps that the schema cannot fill due to its lack of descriptions.

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, but it fails to explain the query, page, or per_page parameters. The query's purpose is only implicitly derived from the tool name/description, and pagination parameters are entirely unaddressed.

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 the resource 'code across GitHub', clearly indicating the operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like github.get_pr and github.list_issues, which operate on different GitHub resources.

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 a clear prerequisite (token with specific scope) and implies its use for code search. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the tool is uniquely positioned among siblings for this purpose, giving clear context.

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