code-fundi-repo-readme

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the crucial deprecation behavior plus the relationship to the replacement tool. This is meaningful beyond the annotation, though it does not detail return format or other operational traits.

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 every sentence earns its place—purpose, input, and deprecation warning. No fluff.

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 tool with one parameter, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, how to invoke it, and its current deprecated status. Complete for the agent to use or avoid correctly.

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 schema description covers 100% of parameters, and the tool description merely repeats the repo_key meaning without adding new details, examples, or constraints. Thus it does not add value beyond the schema.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('parsed README documentation for a repository'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool code-fundi-repo-blueprint by noting its deprecated status.

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 provides explicit input guidance ('Provide either a repository UUID or a clone URL') and direct alternative guidance: 'Deprecated in favor of code-fundi-repo-blueprint', which tells the agent when not to use this tool and what to use instead.

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