code-fundi-index-repo

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the behavioral consequence that files become searchable and mentions updating existing repos, but it does not disclose details like authentication requirements, whether re-indexing overwrites previous data, or any rate limits. It provides some additional context, but not deeply.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a follow-up consequence. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or 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?

For a simple indexing tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main side effect (searchability) and the create/update duality. It lacks information about how to verify indexing completion or whether indexing is asynchronous, but given the tool's low complexity and rich schema, the description is largely sufficient.

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 each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds little beyond restating the 'update' behavior, which is already captured in the 'update' parameter. The description does not provide additional syntax or format details, so 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 the tool's function: 'Index a new GitHub repository in Code-Fundi, or update an existing one.' It uses a specific verb (index) and resource (GitHub repository), and also mentions updating, which distinguishes it from siblings like search or list-repos.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to add a new repo or update an existing one, with the outcome that files become searchable via code-fundi-search. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient to differentiate from sibling tools.

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