github_search_repos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Search GitHub repositories' and does not mention rate limits, authentication, sorting, output behavior, or any other operational traits. This leaves the agent guessing about important runtime 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 a single, concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded, contains no extraneous words, and is appropriately sized for a simple search tool.

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?

The tool has only one required parameter and a full output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the minimal description leaves gaps about query syntax, rate limit considerations, and when to prefer this tool over siblings, making it adequate but not complete.

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 input schema covers all four parameters with clear descriptions (query, sort, order, limit), so the schema already provides high coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 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 'Search GitHub repositories' clearly states the tool's action and resource with a specific verb. It distinguishes from similar GitHub tools by focusing on repository search, but does not explicitly mention alternatives, so it lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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 intended usage is implied by the name and description—use it when you need to find GitHub repositories. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like github_repo_info or github_list_issues, nor any stated exclusions.

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