code-fundi-repo-blueprint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it consumes credits, has a PRO+ tier restriction, and supersedes an older tool. No contradiction 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause adds value: content list, successor relationship, PRO+ caveat, and credit consumption. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description lists the main return components (README, dependencies, functions/variables, conventions). It also covers important contextual factors like PRO+ restriction and credit usage. Combined with the thorough parameter schema and read-only annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (repo_key, demo, conventions_path_prefix). The description adds context about what data is returned but does not materially enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema, so a 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 a specific verb ('Get') and a concrete resource ('canonical repository intelligence overview'), and enumerates the included content (README, dependencies, functions/variables, conventions). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `code-fundi-repo-readme` by calling itself the successor.

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 by framing this as the successor to `code-fundi-repo-readme`, signaling when to prefer it over that sibling. It also notes the PRO+ restriction for conventions and that credits are consumed, but it does not explicitly state alternative tools or exclusion cases.

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