Trending repositories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that withDownloads triggers extra network lookups and is 'slower,' and hints at the return content ('each scored'), but says nothing about rate limits, auth requirements, or pagination behavior.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core behavior and appends the optional-filter caveats. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant with the name or title.

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 4-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, the ranking metric, the filter, and the costly optional flag. Missing detail on the limit parameter and safety profile keeps it short of 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 coverage is only 25% (only language is documented in the schema). The description compensates well for withDownloads by explaining it fetches npm/PyPI weekly downloads, and restates the period choices, but says nothing about the 'limit' parameter or the meaning of the score, leaving a genuine 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 states a specific resource and ranking criterion ('Most-starred repositories created in the last day, week or month') plus the optional filters, so an agent immediately knows what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings recommend_repos or compare_repos, which the agent must infer.

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?

It gives actionable conditional guidance for one parameter: 'Set withDownloads to also look up npm/PyPI weekly downloads (slower),' which tells the agent both when to enable it and the cost tradeoff. It offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over recommend_repos or compare_repos.

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