repository_object_search

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'retrieves' without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, safe, or the nature of results (e.g., list, pagination). The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing behavioral context such as side effects or error conditions.

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 concise, consisting of a single sentence and a bold prerequisites section. It is front-loaded with the most critical usage information (prerequisites), achieving efficient communication without extraneous words.

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 (nested parameters, output schema), the description covers the core purpose and prerequisites but lacks context on search behavior (e.g., matching logic, handling of empty results). The schema fills many gaps, but the description alone is minimally adequate.

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%, providing full documentation for parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers, such as format constraints or usage nuances. Baseline 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 tool retrieves 'repository objects other than Document instances', which distinguishes it from the sibling `document_search`. While it does not explicitly use the word 'search', the verb 'retrieves' combined with the tool name clarifies its 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 specifies prerequisites in order, which guides usage, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like `document_search`. The implication that it is for non-document objects is present but not elaborated with exclusions or comparative context.

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