redm-search-discoveries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches a GitHub repository but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or what the search results look like (e.g., file paths, snippets). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action, target, and scope, 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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., file listings, content snippets), any limitations (e.g., search depth, repository structure), or how it differs from sibling search tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('query' and 'limit'), including a default value for 'limit'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as query syntax examples or result formatting. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and target resource ('RDR3 discoveries GitHub repository for game assets, scripts, and documentation'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'redm-search-natives' or 'redm-search-framework-docs', which appear to be similar search operations for different scopes.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple search-related siblings (e.g., 'redm-search-natives', 'redm-search-framework-docs'), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct—such as searching a specific repository versus other documentation sources—leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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