project_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the analysis surface: it reports guessed entry points and the specific files consulted, and it flags unresolved/dynamic imports and syntax-error files, which tells the agent the map is heuristic and may be incomplete. It does not explicitly state that the call is read-only or note cost/scale behavior for large projects, leaving a modest gap.

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?

One dense enumerative sentence plus the front-loaded imperative "Start here" — close to no waste and the routing cue is prominent. The list is long but each item is a distinct reported datum, so trimming would lose 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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly focuses on scope of analysis and when to call it. For a zero-parameter project overview the definition is nearly complete; only an explicit read-only/side-effect statement and any project-size caveat are missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for an empty schema applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 names a concrete resource (the project) and enumerates exactly what the overview contains: languages, module count, Python packages, guessed entry points with the heuristics used (pyproject scripts, __main__.py, package.json bin/main/exports), import-cycle count, unresolved/dynamic imports, and syntax-error files. That enumeration also cleanly distinguishes it from the narrower siblings (find_cycles, dependents, dependencies, impact, orphans_and_hubs, symbol_users), which each answer one targeted question.

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?

"Start here" is an explicit sequencing instruction that tells the agent to call this before the targeted siblings, which is meaningful routing guidance for a zero-parameter tool. It stops short of stating exclusions or when a sibling is preferable instead, so it is clear context without full when/when-not coverage.

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