search_repository

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic function. It fails to mention what is searched (e.g., filenames, content, metadata), whether pagination exists, rate limits, or authentication needs. The minimal text does not adequately inform the agent of call side effects or constraints.

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 that directly states the tool's function. It earns its place with no wasted words, but it is perhaps too terse for a tool with many siblings, slightly reducing completeness.

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 tool has two parameters, no output schema, and multiple siblings (e.g., browse_repository, list_components), the description is insufficient. It does not clarify whether the search covers full text or just filenames, what the response format is, or how it relates to other tools for obtaining repository information.

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% with descriptions for both query and fileType. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides; it merely reiterates the search purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 it searches for files or content in a specific repository. It identifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('files or content'), and scope ('shadcn/ui repository'), distinguishing it from siblings like browse_repository or get_component_source which have different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., browse_repository for navigation, get_component_source for specific files). The description does not specify prerequisites or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use from the name alone.

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