Search GitHub repositories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that only public repositories are searched and results are 'top matches', implying ranking. However, it does not detail ordering criteria, pagination, or specify that it is read-only, though 'search' implicitly indicates a non-mutating operation.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action ('Search public GitHub repositories by keyword') and directly lists the return fields. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the primary use case, scope, and return fields. It does not specify sorting or result count, but these are inferable from 'top matches' and the 'limit' parameter. It is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both 'query' and 'limit'. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond tying 'query' to 'keyword' and implying the limit affects 'top matches', but this is redundant with the schema.

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 verb 'search' with a specific resource ('public GitHub repositories') and a scope ('by keyword'), and lists the output fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_repository' (specific repo) and 'list_issues' by focusing on 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 provides clear context for use: searching public repositories by keyword. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'public GitHub repositories' implies it is for finding repositories, not for other operations like issues or readmes.

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