code-fundi-research

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it performs a search and then 'streams an AI response.' This discloses the streaming nature and the two-step execution model, which is valuable context not available from annotations alone. No contradiction detected.

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 long and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first gives the action and result, and the second clarifies the workflow and selection criterion. There is no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the high complexity (16 parameters) and absence of an output schema, the description provides adequate high-level context for choosing the tool but leaves invocation details to the schema. It mentions streaming and analysis but does not describe output structure or how to use the many filter parameters. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 63%, which is moderate but not high. The description itself does not explain any parameter semantics, but the input schema already provides descriptions for 10 out of 16 parameters. The remaining unspecified parameters (e.g., min_lines, file_paths, visibility) are not addressed, so the description adds no extra value here.

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+resource+outcome structure: 'Search Code-Fundi repositories AND get an AI-synthesized analysis of the results.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling code-fundi-search by emphasizing the AI analysis and summary functionality, making the tool's unique value obvious.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when you need both code context and an intelligent summary/explanation.' It does not, however, mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like code-fundi-search for search-only use cases.

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