smart-search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: that the tool returns GitHub search URLs rather than direct results, and that Claude Code should use WebFetch to access those URLs. This is valuable context about the tool's output format and required follow-up actions. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences, both of which earn their place. The first establishes purpose, the second provides critical behavioral guidance. The emoji adds visual distinction without being distracting. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is incomplete. While it provides excellent guidance about the tool's output format and required follow-up actions, it completely neglects parameter semantics. The behavioral transparency is good but doesn't cover all aspects needed for a search tool with multiple parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description provides no information about any of the 4 parameters (query, type, language, sort). It doesn't explain what these parameters mean, what values they accept, or how they affect the search. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.

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 searches GitHub repositories, code, issues, and users, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying GitHub as the target platform. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from all siblings since many are also search tools for different platforms.

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 provides explicit guidance about when to use this tool: for searching GitHub content. It also provides important usage context by stating that the tool returns GitHub search URLs that should be accessed with WebFetch. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or explicitly name alternatives among the many sibling search tools.

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