Ask Repo

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying mechanism (embeddings-based semantic search), the data sources searched, and the required environment variables (VOYAGE_API_KEY, QDRANT_URL/QDRANT_API_KEY). This goes beyond the tool name and helps the agent understand dependencies and scope. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but that's implied by 'answers'.

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, efficiently front-loaded: first states purpose and mechanism, second gives usage guidance and prerequisites. No redundant words; every part 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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the input sources, usage scenario, and environment requirements. It does not explicitly describe the return value format, but the nature of the tool (answering a question) makes it inferable. Minor gap, but overall sufficient for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context for the 'query' parameter through examples (e.g., 'does this support TypeScript?'), but does not detail formats for owner/repo beyond what the schema provides. This is a modest addition that meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 answers free-text questions about a repo using embeddings-based semantic search over specific sources (README, docs/*.md, top issue threads). It includes concrete examples and explicitly positions it as the tool for questions other structured tools can't answer, distinguishing it from siblings like get_repo_health and find_good_first_issues.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this for questions the other structured tools can't answer directly.' This directly tells the agent when to select this tool over alternatives, backed by illustrative examples. It implicitly covers when not to use it (when a structured tool fits).

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