bb_search_repositories

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read-only search and what fields are returned, but it omits behavioral details like case-insensitive matching, pagination behavior, or what happens when projectKey is omitted versus provided.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the return shape is summarized efficiently.

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?

For a read-only search tool the description is adequate, but it lacks pagination guidance, explicit alternative routing, and any behavior beyond the basic search/return statement. With no annotations and no output schema, it leaves the agent to infer some call semantics.

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?

The description adds meaning by tying the text parameter to name/description matching and by noting searches span the whole server. However, limit and start have no schema descriptions, and the description does not explain their pagination semantics, leaving a partial 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 begins with a specific verb (Search) and a specific resource (repositories), plus the matching criteria (name/description). It clearly differentiates from siblings like bb_list_repositories and bb_search_code by emphasizing server-wide repository search.

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 makes the intended context clear: use this to find repositories by name/description, not to list all repositories or search code. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as bb_search_code.

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