search_patches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the search and filter functionality but does not disclose behavioral traits like ordering, pagination, read-only nature, or any side effects. The limit parameter suggests pagination but this is not addressed.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and key filters. No unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 6 parameters (1 required), no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is adequate but not thorough. It covers the main filters but omits mention of archived and limit parameters. The output schema mitigates the need to describe returns, but the description could still be more complete.

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 high (83%), with most parameters having descriptions in the schema. The description adds a summary of key filters (project, state, submitter) but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. Therefore, it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 tool searches patches by name substring with optional filters (project, state, submitter). The verb 'search' and resource 'patches' are specific, and the primary filtering method is mentioned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_patch or find_by_msgid.

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 usage when searching by name substring with filters, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives (e.g., get_patch for a specific patch, find_by_msgid for message ID). The context signals show siblings but no guidance is provided, so usage is implied but not explicit.

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