github_repo_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well. It discloses what the tool returns ('repository names, descriptions, stars, and URLs') and importantly states what it does NOT return ('NOT the code itself'). It also implies this is a read-only search operation (no destructive behavior mentioned). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details, parameters, example). Every sentence adds value: the first states purpose, subsequent sections provide crucial context and alternatives, parameter descriptions are essential given 0% schema coverage, and the example is helpful. No wasted words.

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 search tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral constraints. The main gap is lack of output format details beyond a high-level description of what fields are returned. Given the complexity, it's very complete but not perfect.

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 fully compensate. It provides clear documentation for all 3 parameters: query ('Search keywords'), limit ('Maximum number of results'), and language ('Filter by programming language'), including default values and examples. This adds substantial 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 GitHub repositories by keyword or topic, specifying the verb 'search' and resource 'GitHub repositories'. It distinguishes from siblings like github_code_search by focusing on repositories rather than code, and from get_repo_tree/list_repo_contents by being for discovery rather than exploration.

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?

Explicit 'USE THIS WHEN' section provides clear context for when to use this tool ('need to find repositories for a library, framework, or topic'). 'BEST FOR' further clarifies the primary use case. It explicitly names three alternative tools for exploring code after finding a repo, providing excellent guidance on tool selection.

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