search_skills_and_agents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles the most important operational gotcha: code search requires GITHUB_TOKEN in the server environment, implying degraded results without it. It also discloses the return shape (repository, file path, raw download URL). It omits rate limits, pagination behavior, and failure modes, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what is searched, what comes back, and the environment prerequisite. Front-loaded with the action and resource, and no filler or repetition of the name.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the returned fields. Combined with the token prerequisite and 100% parameter coverage, an agent has what it needs to call the tool; only rate-limit and pagination details are absent.

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 query, limit, and searchType are already fully documented, including the enum values. The description restates the query concept and the skill/MCP-server split but adds no syntax, formatting, or matching semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (GitHub for OpenCode/Claude skills and MCP server configs) with clear scope, including what a match contains. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the siblings analyze_project_needs or install_skill_or_agent, though the search-vs-install distinction is reasonably self-evident from the verb.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus analyze_project_needs or install_skill_or_agent, and offers no exclusions or workflow context. The only conditional guidance ('Set GITHUB_TOKEN...') is a setup prerequisite rather than usage direction.

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