Search AL-Go GitHub Discussions

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It only says 'Search for relevant discussions' without disclosing read/write nature, API used, result ordering, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for understanding tool 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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loads the purpose. No unnecessary words, but could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

Description is minimal for a search tool with no output schema and no annotations. It omits important context such as expected response format, query syntax limitations, or how results are ordered. Comparatively, sibling tools may have richer descriptions.

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 100%, with both parameters adequately described in the schema (query and limit). Description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Search for relevant discussions in the AL-Go repository', specifying the action (search), resource (discussions), and scope (AL-Go). It naturally distinguishes from siblings like alg-search-issues and alg-search-docs.

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?

No guidance on when to use alg-search-discussions versus alternatives like alg-search-issues or alg-search-docs. Missing information about when not to use, prerequisites, or context for choosing this tool.

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