get_product_map

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default return format ('concept BRIEFS by default (name, truncated definition, tags, link counts)'), the effect of detail:'full' ('expands in place, paginated'), and adds a performance caution ('use sparingly'). It also notes the output is paginated, a behavioral trait not in the schema. This is transparent for a read tool.

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 concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage guidance, and output/parameter detail. No filler or redundant repetition of schema information. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately explains the return payload (briefs, full detail) and pagination. It also provides the essential usage context (workspace vocabulary, first call) and the alternative for full detail. Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 simple params), the description is complete.

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?

Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by clarifying the default behavior ('Returns concept BRIEFS by default') and by giving additional guidance on the detail parameter ('use sparingly', 'expands in place') – context not present in the schema description alone. This raises the score to 4.

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 it provides an 'Overview of the workspace ontology: entity counts and the concept index' – a clear resource and scope. It explicitly positions itself as the entry point ('Call this FIRST') and differentiates from get_concept by directing full-detail lookups there. This distinguishes it from sibling tools by its role as the top-level index.

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 says 'Call this FIRST when answering product-analytics questions' – clear when to use. Names get_concept as the alternative for full detail on a single concept, and cautions 'detail:"full" expands in place (paginated; use sparingly)' – telling when to avoid using the full mode. This is ideal usage guidance.

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