search

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: automatic search, problem extraction, query formulation, and result presentation with community scores. It implies non-destructive read. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, auth requirements, or potential side effects, but for a search tool this is adequate.

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 about 100 words and front-loads the action and triggers. All sentences add value, though it could be slightly more concise. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description explains that results include community scores and that high scores indicate validation. It covers usage scenarios and proactive invocation. Missing details on pagination or error handling, but sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by guiding how to formulate the query (extract core problem, include error messages) and how to interpret scores. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 tool searches Reposit for existing solutions, provides specific scenarios for use, and distinguishes it from siblings (no other search tool). The verb 'search' and resource 'Reposit' are explicit.

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 explicitly lists four scenarios (unfamiliar error, non-trivial problem, user asks for better way, before complex feature) and instructs to search proactively without being asked. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the guidance is clear and complete.

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