github_search_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that repo scoping is possible via `repo:owner/name` and provides an example, but it does not mention any rate limits, authentication needs, or return format. Since it is a search tool, read-only behavior is implied, but not explicitly stated.

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 a single clear sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a useful example. It is concise, well-structured, and every word contributes meaning.

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 the simple two-parameter schema and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the primary use case and the repo-scoping feature. However, it omits the optional `per_page` parameter details and does not explicitly contrast with repo search, so it is not fully complete but sufficient for a straightforward search tool.

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 only 50% (query has a description, per_page does not). The description repeats the schema's example for `query` but adds no new meaning for `per_page`, which remains undocumented. Thus the description adds little value beyond what the schema already provides and fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 code') and the resource ('across GitHub'), with a specific scoping option (`repo:owner/name`). It unambiguously distinguishes itself from the sibling `github_search_repos` by focusing on code rather than repositories.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (searching code globally or within a specific repo) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. However, the sibling tool names provide implicit differentiation, so the guidance is adequate but not fully explicit.

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