github_code_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it returns file paths and locations (not actual contents), requires authentication, is rate-limited without GITHUB_TOKEN, and provides an example of usage. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior or error conditions.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, returns, notes, args, example). Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, and key information is front-loaded. The example at the end is concise and illustrative.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context for a search tool: purpose, usage, returns, authentication requirements, and parameter details. It's nearly complete but could benefit from mentioning the format of returned results or any limitations beyond rate limits.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides detailed parameter semantics: query is for code search with examples, repo is an optional filter in 'owner/repo' format, and limit is the maximum results with a default value. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 searches for code snippets across GitHub or within specific repositories, distinguishing it from sibling tools like github_repo_search (which searches repositories) and get_file_content (which reads file contents). It specifies the exact resource (code snippets) and scope (GitHub/repository).

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 includes an explicit 'USE THIS WHEN' section that states when to use this tool (to find code examples, function definitions, or usage patterns). It also distinguishes from alternatives by noting that to read actual file contents, get_file_content() should be used with the returned paths.

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