search_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and query syntax, but does not mention that this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or limitations like searching only public repositories or the default branch. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single sentence, 'Search code with GitHub code search syntax,' which is concise and free of unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and meets the standard for front-loaded clarity.

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's simplicity, the complete input schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context such as when to use it or what results to expect, but the structured fields cover the core details. It is not as rich as the HIGH calibration example.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, including an example for the query. The description's mention of 'GitHub code search syntax' is consistent with the schema but does not add new meaning beyond it. Thus, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Search code with GitHub code search syntax.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('code'), and the mention of 'GitHub code search syntax' distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_issues and search_repositories.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention how it differs from search_issues or search_repositories, nor does it offer any context about appropriate use cases. There are no exclusions or recommendations.

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