code_map

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It discloses the return shape (available flag, files with exports), the prerequisite (index already run), and behavior when the index is unavailable (run hivelore index code first). This gives strong context for a read-only lookup tool, though it doesn't discuss auth or rate limits.

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 with clear sections (description, usage note, tip, parameters, returns). Front-loaded purpose. Each sentence earns its place; the tip is genuinely useful. Slight redundancy with the PARAMETERS section duplicating schema, but not enough to penalize.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it provides the return shape, an availability flag with fallback instruction, and the required precondition. The schema handles token-budget details, so nothing critical is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds an example ('PaymentService'), clarifies partial-name matching, and includes the get_briefing auto-lookup tip, going beyond the schema for symbol and file parameters.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Look up where symbols (classes, functions, interfaces) are defined in the codebase.' Distinct from grep and sibling code_search by explicitly saying 'USE INSTEAD OF grepping when you need to find where something lives.'

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?

Explicit use case: 'USE INSTEAD OF grepping when you need to find where something lives.' Also mentions prerequisite (hivelore index) and a tip to include symbols in get_briefing. Could strengthen by explicitly naming sibling code_search as an alternative for full-text search, but this is already good.

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