search_repository_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the action without mentioning read-only nature, output format, pagination, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a search operation.

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 front-loads the core purpose. It is not verbose and avoids tautology. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing critical context, but from a pure conciseness standpoint it is well-structured.

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 tool with three required parameters and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to construct a search, any limitations, or when to use this tool instead of siblings. The presence of an output schema does not offset the lack of usage guidance and behavioral context.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The tool description does not compensate by explaining the meaning, format, or constraints of 'owner', 'repo', or 'keyword'. Although the names are intuitive, the description adds no value beyond what the parameter names imply.

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 action (search) and resource (issues in a repository), which is specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_issues', which likely performs a broader search. The agent must infer that this tool is scoped to a repository, but this distinction is not 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_issues' or 'list_pull_requests'. It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusion conditions. An agent has no basis to choose this tool over its siblings beyond the name.

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