code-fundi-list-public-repos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details: no API key required, supports pagination, an 'updated_since' cursor, and optional embedding of largest files. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, providing useful context about access and response characteristics.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every word earns its place. It covers scope, features, and authentication without any fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only list endpoint with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the access requirement, the global scope, and key features. However, it does not hint at the response format or mention the optional `internal_secret` parameter's purpose beyond the schema, which leaves slight ambiguity for 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing parameter behavior: 'pagination' maps to limit/offset, 'updated_since cursor' maps to `since`, and 'embedding of each repo's largest files' maps to `file_count`. This high-level framing strengthens understanding beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Browse the global catalog of indexed public repositories (across all Code-Fundi users)' with a specific verb and resource scope. It distinguishes from siblings like code-fundi-list-repos by noting it covers all users and requires no API key, making it unique.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (browsing public repos without authentication), but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it. The phrase 'across all Code-Fundi users' and 'does not require an API key' gives enough guidance for basic selection, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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