project_map

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

The description clearly states the primary action and scope, which suggests a non-destructive analysis-style operation. However, since no annotations or output schema are provided, it would benefit from explicitly saying whether the tool modifies anything or what form the returned map takes.

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?

The description is a single focused sentence with a useful HIGH_LEVEL qualifier and no filler. Every element contributes to understanding what is mapped and at what granularity.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose but omits return format, usage triggers, and relationship to nearby architecture tools. It is minimally sufficient for making a basic call, but an agent would benefit from more context.

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 input schema fully documents maxDepth with a description, range, and default, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but that is acceptable because the schema already carries the semantic weight for this single optional parameter.

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 specific verb ('Builds') and a concrete resource ('indexed architectural map of all game folders, systems, shared modules, and server/client script roles'). It clearly communicates scope, but it does not explicitly distinguish project_map from overlapping siblings like context_get_architecture or architecture_analyze.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives. Sibling tools such as context_get_architecture, project_analyze, and hierarchy_scaffold likely overlap in purpose, but the description provides no conditions, exclusions, or routing hints to help an agent decide.

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