stars_search

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that include_archived reaches projects the user has un-starred, which is genuine behavioral context, but it never says the search is read-only, whether it is keyword or semantic, how results are ranked, or whether a synced index is required — notable given stars_sync/stars_reindex exist as siblings.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then a positioning line, then a compact Args block. The return-field list is partly wasteful because an output schema exists, but overall the text is tight and every parameter line adds meaning over the bare schema titles.

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?

The output schema is present so return values need not be described, and parameter meaning is well covered. What is missing is the operational context an agent needs to decide when this tool is not usable — e.g. index freshness, sync prerequisites, or result ordering.

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 Args block does the work: query accepts Chinese or English, limit caps result count, category restricts to one category with an example, and include_archived is explained as including historically un-starred projects. This is solid compensation, with only minor gaps (no limit range or default restated).

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?

States a specific verb+resource: searching locally stored GitHub starred projects, and adds that it is the primary tool for the question 'what have I starred'. That implicitly separates it from stars_get/stars_stats, but the siblings are never named, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

Clear guidance on query style (Chinese scenario words like '视频制作', project names, tech tags) and a positioning statement that this is the first-choice tool for 'what have I starred'. No explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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