find_repos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns a 'verifiable, adoption-grade verdict with evidence and quality signals (stars, activity, license, archived status)', which gives the agent a clear picture of the output characteristics. It does not mention side effects, rate limits, or read-only nature, but as a search/ranking tool, that is minor. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare 'find repos'.

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 with zero fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides the usage context and expected output. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 (7 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context. It explains the intended use case, what the tool returns (ranked projects with quality signals), and the decision it supports. It does not go into detail on ranking methodology or edge cases, but for a search tool with a rich schema, this is sufficient. The output schema likely covers return structure.

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 0% because the tool description does not explain any of the seven parameters. The description does hint at some filters by naming 'license, archived status' and 'stars', which map to the license, include_archived, and min_stars parameters, but it omits query, top_k, intent, and language entirely. Since coverage is low, the description must compensate, but it only partially does. The schema itself has strong descriptions, so the agent can still understand the parameters, but the tool description adds minimal value beyond 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 opens with a specific verb ('Rank') and resource ('open-source GitHub projects'), and clarifies the outcome ('implement a described feature'). It distinguishes the tool's role as an adoption/study selection aid, which is distinct from the likely deeper-analysis siblings repo_intel and health, even though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

It explicitly states the trigger condition: 'Use when an agent needs to pick a library/project to adopt or study'. This gives clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools, which would have strengthened the guidance.

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