search_repos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds important context: pagination limits (up to 100 per page, total cap 1000) and qualifier syntax. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but the provided docs link partially mitigates that. The added constraints go beyond schema basics.

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 three sentences, each adding value: purpose, example, and limits with a docs link. It is front-loaded and has no redundant phrasing.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage example, pagination behavior, and provides a reference link. It does not describe the return structure, but that is not strictly necessary for a known API endpoint. Overall, it is sufficiently complete to guide an 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 coverage is 60%, with q, sort, and order already described. The description adds a concrete example for q and mentions the per_page maximum limit, but page and per_page lack dedicated explanation. The description partially compensates for schema gaps but does not fully elaborate on all parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('GitHub repositories'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_code or search_issues. The example qualifiers further clarify the tool's specific purpose.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for searching repositories by criteria, with a concrete example. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., use get_repository for a single repo), though sibling names imply differentiation.

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