Find implementations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that status is UNKNOWN unless separately verified, which is a useful caveat, but it does not explain what 'status' means, what output to expect, or whether any verification happens implicitly. The read-only nature is implied by 'find' but not stated.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the verification-status caveat is a meaningful, compact addition. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It omits expected output structure, the meaning of 'status,' how verification is determined, and practical information about parameter usage. An agent would need to guess at important calling details.

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 mentions 'paper or method,' mapping to paper_id and method, but it does not explain the limit parameter, whether at least one of method/paper_id is required, or how the two interact. This is only partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 the tool finds GitHub repositories related to a verified paper or method, which is a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like find_models and find_datasets by the explicit 'GitHub repositories' target, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 'verified paper or method' implies the tool is for verified items and the status caveat suggests verification matters, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It does not mention alternatives such as find_models or find_datasets.

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