search_repos

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states results are ranked and include star counts and badges, but does not disclose defaults (e.g., limit=20), pagination behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. While not misleading, more detail would improve transparency.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by search scope and result details. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

With 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior but omits details like default limit, sorting criteria, and how to interpret results. It is adequate but not fully complete for complex use cases.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema descriptions, which already define each parameter clearly.

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 repos in the Hermes Atlas ecosystem, specifies the search fields (names, descriptions, categories, owners), and mentions returned results include star counts and badges. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_repo (single repo) or list_categories.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use search vs alternative tools such as get_repo for exact matches or list_categories for browsing. Usage is implied as a general search, but lacks exclusions or context.

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