code-fundi-repo-map

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it consumes credits and returns structured JSON. There is no contradiction between the description and annotations, and the added credit consumption is important operational context.

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 succinct sentences. The first sentence states the core function and options; the second covers return format and credit cost. No wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 description covers the core build operation, optional inputs, return type, and credit consumption. While there is no output schema, the 'Returns structured JSON' statement is minimal but acceptable for a read-only mapping tool with fully described parameters in the input schema. It is not exhaustive about output shape, but it is complete enough for invocation.

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%, with every parameter having a description. The tool description only echoes the optional compare repos and public index features, adding no new parameter-level semantics or syntax details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation load.

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 opens with a specific verb phrase 'Build a cross-repository dependency map' and a clear resource (dependency map across repositories). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing cross-repo mapping and optional public index inclusion, which no sibling name suggests.

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?

It states the tool's scope (source repo, optional compared repos, optional public index) and notes credit consumption, giving clear contextual usage. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficiently clear among the sibling list.

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