search_projects_by_tech

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'advanced filtering and sorting' but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core functionality, and the second provides usage guidance with examples. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and it's appropriately front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and basic usage well, but lacks behavioral transparency and output information. For a search tool with multiple parameters and no structured output documentation, it should provide more context about results format and limitations.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'technology stack' and 'programming language' (covered by 'language' parameter) and 'topics' (covered by 'topic' parameter), but doesn't provide additional semantic context. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific verb ('Searches and filters') and resource ('repositories') with precise criteria ('by technology stack, programming language, topics, or minimum stars'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_repositories' by emphasizing advanced filtering capabilities. The example categories further clarify its specialized purpose.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to find projects by category') with specific examples, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools. It implies usage for filtered searches versus basic listing, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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