explore_repo

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: starts from vault INDEX, breadth-first traversal, returns summaries at increasing depth, and explains vault_root resolution (optional, defaults to CODELORE_VAULT_ROOT, resolves to configured repo). No destructive actions implied.

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?

Well-structured: purpose sentence, use-case list, traversal behavior, alternatives, guardrail, parameter details. Every sentence serves a purpose. No filler.

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 tool's complexity (graph traversal, optional root, integration with other tools) and existence of output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: usage, behavior, parameters, and context. No gaps remain.

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 has 0% property descriptions, but the description adds meaning: max_depth controls traversal depth (implied by 'increasing depth'), and vault_root is optional with explicit fallback behavior. Could explicitly mention default values but still adds significant value 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 clearly states 'Get a structured overview of the repo by traversing the vault graph.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like vault_read (drill down) and vault_write (modification) by specifying appropriate use cases and alternatives.

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?

Explicitly advises when to use: onboarding questions such as 'explain the repo' or 'give me an overview.' Provides explicit alternatives (vault_read for drilling) and a guardrail against using vault_write unless explicitly requested, leaving no ambiguity.

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