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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the transformation rules (routes become screens, nested routes become flows, components/API routes/hooks join the matching step) and the fact that output is JSON destined for .better-design/feature-map.json.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces before the mapping rules and the input instruction. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema and a fairly involved transformation, the description does explain what the JSON represents and where it goes, and annotations cover the safety profile. It stops short of describing the returned structure or size limits, which would fully close the loop.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the `git ls-files` sourcing and the product name. The description reinforces the exhaustiveness requirement ('pass every path') but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (drafts/builds a map) and resource (product features and flows) and identifies its input source (repository file list) and output destination (.better-design/feature-map.json). This cleanly separates it from the sibling read-feature-map (reads) and update-feature-map (edits).

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?

Gives clear operational context: pass every path from `git ls-files` as `files`. The draft-vs-read-vs-update distinction against siblings is implied by the verb rather than stated, and there are no explicit when-not conditions, so it falls 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.