github_search

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'read-only', which is a positive trait, but omits important details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, output format, or pagination behavior. This is insufficient for a search 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 a single short sentence, which is concise. However, conciseness is only beneficial when the core information is present. Here, it omits critical details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently packed.

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 tool has 2 parameters (one required), an output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameters, return values, or usage context. While the sibling list provides some domain context, the description itself leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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%, meaning the description must explain parameters. It does not mention 'query' or 'limit' at all, nor their formats, defaults, or constraints. The schema provides basic structure, but the description adds no semantic value, leaving the agent to guess parameter usage.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'GitHub issues and pull requests', and adds 'read-only' for behavioral context. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like memory_search or web_fetch, but could be more precise about the scope (e.g., whether it includes comments or only issues/PRs).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with siblings like memory_search or web_fetch. The agent must infer appropriateness from the name alone.

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