code-fundi-repo-status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds little beyond that—it does not disclose possible status values, whether stale data might be returned, authentication requirements, or any other behavioral traits. It only restates the input format already present in the schema.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the essential purpose and input in a compact form.

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 tool is simple, but there is no output schema, so the description should indicate what the response contains (e.g., an indexing state, a boolean, or an error). It merely says 'check status' without specifying what information will be returned or what the possible statuses are. This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's output.

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 coverage is 100% with the parameter 'url' described as 'Git clone URL to check status for'. The description simply echoes this ('by its clone URL') without adding any extra meaning. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and clearly identifies the resource ('indexing status of a repository') and the input ('by its clone URL'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like code-fundi-index-repo, which likely initiates indexing.

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 the usage context: when you need to know if a repository is indexed, provide the clone URL. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as code-fundi-index-repo, nor does it give any exclusions or prerequisites.

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