search_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It provides a valuable caveat about GitHub code search indexing lag, explaining that a 0-result response may mean 'not indexed yet' rather than 'no matches'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not cover auth or rate limits.

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 exactly two sentences: the first immediately states the purpose, the second provides the essential indexing caveat. There is no unnecessary verbosity or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally explain what the tool returns (e.g., matching file paths, code snippets). It does not describe the response format. While the indexing caveat is useful, the missing return format leaves a gap for the agent.

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 75%, with owner, repo, and query described. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, and the 'limit' parameter has no description but has default/min/max constraints. The indexing caveat is not directly tied to parameter semantics.

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 'Search code within a single allowlisted repo', giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'search_trending_repos' by specifying code search rather than repo search.

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 implies usage for code search in a specific repo but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The 'single allowlisted repo' restriction is a context clue, but no alternative tool is named.

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