search_open_source_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only advises the user to inspect the license before reuse, which is a human action, not a tool behavior. It does not disclose search sorting, result format, return values, or any limitations of the tool.

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 concise sentences. The first front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds a relevant license-reminder warning. 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and four undocumented parameters, this description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values or parameter semantics, and the license advice doesn't compensate for the missing contextual information. The tool likely pairs with siblings like inspect_repository and check_license, but that relationship is not mentioned.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the query, limit, language, or minStars parameters. With no parameter semantics in the description, users must infer or experiment with the meaning of each field, which is inadequate for a 4-parameter tool.

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 action (search) and resource (GitHub repositories) with a specific scope (game-development code), distinguishing it from asset-focused sibling tools like search_game_assets. The verb 'search' is specific and the resource is unambiguous.

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 implies a clear usage context: searching for reusable game-development code. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the purpose is distinct enough that the context is clear. The license warning also provides a practical usage guideline.

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