search_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches code but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., code snippets, file paths, repository matches), any rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by directly stating what the tool does.

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's moderate complexity (search functionality with three parameters), the description is minimal but not entirely inadequate. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., output format, limitations), but the presence of an output schema (per context signals) means the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and incomplete usage guidance, it falls short of being fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (query, per_page, page) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying a search scope ('across GitHub repositories'), which is minimal value. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Search code across GitHub repositories.' It specifies the action ('Search') and resource ('code across GitHub repositories'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_issues' or 'search_repositories' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention when to prefer it over other search tools (e.g., 'search_issues' for issue searches) or other code-related tools (e.g., 'get_file_contents' for specific file retrieval). Without any usage context or exclusions, the agent must infer this from the tool name alone.

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