code-fundi-repo-radius

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds critical behavioral details: 'consumes credits' and the tier requirement. This goes beyond the structured hints and helps the agent anticipate costs and access restrictions. 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and purpose. The second sentence concisely covers return values and access constraints. No redundancy or filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers intent, returns, and prerequisites. It does not explain differences between single vs. multiple file/dependency parameters or how credits are metered, but the schema fully documents parameters, making the description sufficient. The high-level return types are mentioned, which helps.

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 mentions 'files or dependencies' which loosely maps to the file/files/dependency/dependencies parameters, but it does not add details about parameter formats, relationships, or the use of limit/include beyond what the schema already provides. Credit is given for matching the schema coverage.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Run blast-radius / file impact analysis for one or more files or dependencies.' It clearly states the action, the resource, and the outputs ('projected data flows, entry points, and call edges'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like repo-map or file-docs.

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 by defining when this tool is appropriate (impact analysis for files/dependencies) and includes a prerequisite (PRO/ENTERPRISE/ADMIN tier, STARTUP not eligible). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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