Search repositories

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, closed-world search. The description adds useful scoping behavior by saying it searches indexed repos and excludes already-used ones by default, but it does not disclose result ordering, freshness, pagination, or what the returned list contains.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It quickly establishes search target, scope, and default exclusion behavior.

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?

For a simple read-only search tool this minimally covers the core scope and default filtering behavior. However, with no output schema and no explanation of returned results, ranking, limit defaults, or sibling-tool selection, an agent must infer several operational details.

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 low at 33%, so the description needs to carry more semantic weight. It clarifies that query is a keyword search and indirectly explains the default for include_used by saying used repos are left out, but it says nothing about limit or result-count behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource: keyword search over indexed GitHub repositories. It also adds a scoping behavior, excluding repos the user already uses, which helps distinguish it from a plain candidate listing. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as find_candidates or check_repo, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Usage is implied by the default exclusion of repos the user already uses, suggesting this tool is for discovering new repositories. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to find_candidates, check_repo, or unused_tools, and does not explain when the alternative behavior is preferable.

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