search_trending_repos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It transparently mentions that the tool is a proxy and not an exact match for GitHub trending, and that it searches beyond the allowlist. However, it does not mention output format, pagination, rate limits, or authorization requirements, leaving moderate gaps for a search 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?

The description is two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the core functionality and the second adding key caveats. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler. Critical information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with 3 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the algorithm proxy, allowlist exception, and ranking logic, which are essential context. It does not describe the return format, but given the simplicity of the tool and the lack of an output schema, this is a minor omission rather than a critical gap.

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 input schema covers 67% of parameters (topic and since_days have descriptions), and the description implies 'recently' relates to since_days. The limit parameter lacks a description but has defaults and constraints in the schema. The description adds minimal new parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: finding trending repos for a topic on public GitHub, ranked by star count among recently created/pushed repos. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that operate on specific repos (e.g., get_issue, list_commits) and other search tools like search_code. The verb 'find' and resource 'trending repos for a topic' are specific.

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 gives context that it's a proxy for github.com/trending and not an exact match, which helps set expectations. It also notes it is not restricted to the repo allowlist, indicating when this tool is appropriate (broad public search). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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