search_github_ideas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a critical behavioral trait: the tool has no network access and behaves differently depending on whether github_results is supplied. It omits return format and processing depth, but the offline constraint and conditional branching are well surfaced.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a compact two-branch bullet list. No filler sentences, though the query-passing branch could be worded more precisely.

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 and no annotations, so the description should specify what the distillation produces. It hints at 'patterns' and 'suggestions' but does not describe the returned content or format, and the interaction between the query input and the query the tool supposedly emits is unresolved.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all three parameters. It clarifies github_results (pass upstream results in), but the required 'idea' parameter is never explained and 'query' is ambiguous — the text describes a query being *returned* by the tool, which conflicts with query being an input property.

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 states a specific action (接受上游 GitHub 搜索结果，提炼可借鉴的模式) and explicitly corrects the misleading tool name by noting the MCP does not go online itself. An agent can understand what actually happens, though the name 'search_github_ideas' still suggests live searching.

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?

It gives conditional usage guidance ('if upstream found results, pass via github_results; if not, the tool returns a query and suggestions'), which is genuinely useful routing logic. However, it never contrasts this tool with plausible siblings such as find_related_technologies or probe_idea_question, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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