Github Search Api Routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the routes derive from GitHub's OpenAPI description, matching is ALL-words over summary or path (not fuzzy relevance ranking), and the result set includes a follow-up request tool. It does not mention truncation behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the purpose and return shape, followed by a short workflow pointer. The trailing "See #543" is an opaque reference with no explained meaning for an agent and is the only wasted token.

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?

With an output schema covering return values, annotations covering safety, and full schema descriptions, the description only needed to supply matching semantics and the discovery workflow — both of which it does. An agent has everything required to search and then dispatch the returned request tool.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, and the description earns the bump by explaining how `query` is actually interpreted — conjunctive matching against summary or path — which the schema's "Words for what the call should do" does not convey. It does not elaborate on how `method` interacts with the query, but that parameter is self-explanatory.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Finds REST routes") and pins down the matching semantics precisely: every word of the query must appear in the summary or path. It also enumerates the fields returned (method, path, summary, docs link, request tool), which separates it cleanly from siblings like github_api_read or github_search_issues_prs.

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 makes the discovery-then-invoke workflow clear by noting each result carries "the request tool that sends it," and it routes agents to github_get_skill('api-requests') for conventions. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use this tool (e.g. when the route is already known, use github_api_read directly).

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