search_code

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

With no annotations, all behavioral disclosure falls on the description. It usefully mentions that the tool relies on GitHub's search syntax rather than natural language, which is an important behavioral nuance. It does not mention authentication, result shape, pagination, or rate limits, but the query-syntax note adds meaningful 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 action and includes the most important usage detail: GitHub search syntax. There is no wasted or redundant content.

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 one-parameter, simple search tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it tells the agent what the tool searches, where, and the syntax to use. It could additionally clarify what kinds of results are returned, but this is not a serious omission for such a tool.

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% and the parameter description already provides concrete examples using GitHub search syntax. The tool description reinforces that the query uses GitHub syntax, but adds little beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Busca código') and resource ('no GitHub'), and clarifies that it uses GitHub's specific search syntax. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_repos and list_issues, which operate on different GitHub entities.

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 intended use is implied: an agent would call this when needing to find code, as opposed to listing repositories or issues. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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