repo_map

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the truncation rule (nothing cut unless token_budget is given) and the ranking behavior, which are genuine behavioral traits. It omits any auth/permission or cost context, but for a read-style map tool this is solid disclosure.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the opening sentence defines the output, and each subsequent clause adds the truncation rule, ranking-bias semantics, and usage directive. No filler, though the single packed paragraph is slightly heavy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers output content, ordering, truncation, and focus behavior adequately for a moderately complex tool. The only gap is the unexplained exported_only parameter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains token_budget (truncation to top-ranked that fit) and focus_paths/focus_names (bias ranking toward current work), adding real meaning, but says nothing about exported_only, leaving one of four parameters undefined anywhere.

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+resource: it lays out exactly what the map contains (files with classes/methods and function signatures, ordered by PageRank). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_files and file_outline without opening either schema.

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?

"Use it instead of listing or reading files" gives a clear when-to-use directive against the general alternative actions. It stops short of naming specific siblings (list_files, file_outline, repo_overview) and offers no explicit when-not-to-use condition, so it's strong but not fully routing.

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