repopilot_search_runbooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds 'ranked' output and 'verified historical' scope, which are not in annotations. The statement 'does not modify repository or run state' is redundant with annotations but harmless.

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 with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and resource; the second provides usage timing and a crucial caution. Every sentence 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 search tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains return value ('ranked stored runbooks'), its non-mutating nature, and when to use it. An agent has enough to call correctly without ambiguity.

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 all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions 'failure symptoms or repair terms' which aligns with the query parameter but adds no new information beyond the schema. 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 states the verb 'Search' with a specific resource 'verified historical RepoPilot runbooks' and a target repository, using failure symptoms or repair terms. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools, as none of the other repopilot tools are search-focused.

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?

Explicitly states when to call: 'during triage before selecting a repair strategy' and provides a negative constraint: 'do not use it as proof that a current defect is identical.' This gives clear context for selection.

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