gh_search_repos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about qualifier support and how to exclude forks/archived repos, but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or default sorting beyond what the schema provides.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main action, and uses only two additional sentences to convey qualifier support and exclusion tips. Every sentence contributes value, and the example is helpful without being verbose.

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?

The description covers the core search capability and gives a practical example, but lacks information about pagination, how to control result size via per_page, and the effect of sort/order. An output schema exists, so return values are structured, but the description could be more complete for a tool with four parameters and zero schema-level descriptions.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the query parameter supports qualifiers, but provides no information about sort, order, or per_page. The description adds semantic value only for the required query parameter, leaving the other three parameters undocumented.

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 starts with 'Search GitHub repositories', using a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies scope by mentioning support for all GitHub search qualifiers, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like gh_search_issues and gh_search_code.

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 clearly implies the tool is for searching repositories and provides examples of valid query qualifiers, giving clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to use this tool.

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