eng.query_repos

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns repo details including CI status and deploy keys, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or whether the search is exhaustive. This is acceptable for a simple query tool but not rich.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then adds return-value specifics. Every word contributes value.

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 simple two-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description conveys the core operation and key return fields. It could be slightly more explicit about output structure, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide selection.

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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters ('query' and 'language'), so the description's mention of indexing by name or language adds little beyond the schema. No additional semantic detail such as formatting or matching rules is provided.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource (code repositories) and the two search dimensions (name, programming language). It also distinguishes itself by mentioning returned fields (CI status, deploy keys), setting it apart from sibling tools like eng.run_ci_pipeline or eng.read_source_file.

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?

While no explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, the purpose is so specific that the usage context is clear. The description implies when to use: when needing repository discovery and metadata retrieval, as opposed to pipeline execution (eng.run_ci_pipeline) or file reading (eng.read_source_file).

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