github_search_code

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 states the action ('Search') but doesn't describe key traits like whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response format looks like (e.g., pagination, error handling). This is a significant gap for a search tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, with zero waste.

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 complexity of a code search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, auth), response format, and usage context relative to siblings. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall description doesn't provide enough context for effective agent use.

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 already documents both parameters ('query' and 'per_page') with clear descriptions and constraints. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as query syntax examples or usage tips. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and resource ('code across GitHub repositories'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'github_get_file' (which retrieves specific files) or 'github_list_repos' (which lists repositories), but the focus on code search is clear enough to avoid confusion.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for broad code searches versus using 'github_get_file' for specific file retrieval or 'github_list_repos' for repository discovery. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context ambiguous.

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