search_oss

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose return shape ("ranked candidates with stars and descriptions") and an implicit quality filter. It omits operational context that matters for a GitHub-backed search: authentication expectations, rate limits, and whether results are cached or live. Adequate but incomplete for a zero-annotation tool.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the return-shape detail. Every clause earns its place.

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 four-parameter search tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and the shape of results. It stops short of the context an agent would want in the absence of annotations and sibling routing hints — no rate-limit or auth note, and no signal about handing results to evaluate_repo or compare_alternatives.

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 100%, so all four parameters (query, language, min_stars, limit) are already self-documenting, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's phrase "high-quality" loosely gestures at the min_stars default but adds no format, default, or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Search") with a specific resource and scope ("GitHub for high-quality open-source solutions") and states the agent-facing goal ("before implementing a feature"). It is unambiguous on its own, though it never contrasts itself with evaluate_repo or compare_alternatives, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

"Before implementing a feature" gives a clear situational trigger for reaching for this tool rather than writing code from scratch. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, however, so the agent is not told when to skip this in favor of evaluate_repo or compare_alternatives.

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