code-fundi-file-docs

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about return content ('summaries, functions, dependencies, and code analysis') and the 'AI-generated' nature, which implies processing. No contradictions with annotations.

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: the first states the purpose, the second states the return contents. Front-loaded and concise with no redundant filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by explaining return contents ('summaries, functions, dependencies, and code analysis'). It also mentions the indexed-repository prerequisite. However, it does not explain the 'fields' preset options (basic/summary/full) or error behavior; the schema partially covers this.

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. The description adds no new semantic info beyond referring to 'specific file' and 'indexed repository', which map to existing schema descriptions. Baseline 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 clearly states 'Get AI-generated documentation for a specific file in an indexed repository', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from repo-level tools like code-fundi-repo-readme and listing tools like code-fundi-list-files by focusing on file-specific, AI-generated content.

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 implies usage context via 'in an indexed repository' and 'specific file', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The schema field for file_id references code-fundi-list-files, but the main description lacks this guidance.

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