fund

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

No annotations exist, so the description alone must convey behavior. It only states 'show' without clarifying side effects, network access, error handling, or required permissions. The required 'path' parameter is not explained in the description.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is appropriately concise, though it could include more details without losing clarity.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the output looks like (e.g., a list of funding URLs). It is complete for a simple query but lacks output details. Sibling tools imply this is part of a npm-like ecosystem but no additional context is provided.

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% (both parameters have descriptions), so the tool description adds no new meaning. It repeats the concept of 'funding information' but does not enhance understanding 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 uses a specific verb 'Show' and resource 'funding information for installed packages', clearly stating the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'pkg' or 'view', which other tools might also show information.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'view' or 'pkg'). The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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