findReposByGithub

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool performs an exact forge URL to npub mapping and is GitHub-specific, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not discuss any other behaviors (e.g., return format, auth, rate limits, error handling) that might differ or be inherited from findReposBySource.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core alias relationship, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, and the secondary sentence provides essential usage guidance without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters with many overlapping names (github/githubs, source/sources), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too brief to stand alone. It relies on the agent already knowing findReposBySource. It does not explain parameter relationships, defaults, or the return value, leaving significant gaps for a tool with this complexity.

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 only 17% (only 'github' is described). The description adds minimal parameter meaning—the phrase 'exact forge URL' relates to the 'github' parameter but does not explain any of the other five parameters (limit, relays, source, githubs, sources). This is insufficient compensation for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states it is an alias for findReposBySource and hints at the core function 'exact forge URL → npub'. It distinguishes itself as the GitHub-specific variant by referencing the alternative for non-GitHub forges. However, the arrow notation is cryptic and the actual operation is not fully spelled out.

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 second sentence gives explicit guidance: 'Prefer findReposBySource for non-GitHub forges.' This tells the agent when to use this tool vs the primary alternative. It does not mention other sibling tools like searchRepos or listRepos, but for an alias, the guidance is clear and sufficient.

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