phabricator_repository_search

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description carries no safety burden — but it also adds nothing else. It does not mention pagination via before/after cursors, the limit cap, or that optional attachments change the returned payload, all relevant to calling it correctly.

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?

A single short phrase with no waste, and the resource is front-loaded after the verb. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than being genuinely crisp.

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 7 optional parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the definition should say what a result record contains and how attachments alter it. The description is far too thin for that complexity, leaving the agent to reconstruct behavior from the schema alone.

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 100%, so every parameter, including nested constraints and attachments, is documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics such as when to prefer queryKey over constraints.query, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Search Diffusion repositories" gives a verb plus a resource, but relies on the Phabricator-specific term "Diffusion" rather than saying it searches/listing code repositories. It also does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like phabricator_repository_browse or phabricator_repository_code_search.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus repository_browse (browsing a repo), repository_code_search (searching code inside repos), or repository_edit. The agent must infer the boundary from the tool names alone.

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