Read the app knowledge map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the default section and warning that large sections 'come back as a resource URI' — a response-shape behavior the agent could not infer from annotations or schema. It omits whether the URI must be dereferenced separately or what error occurs when a featureId does not exist.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the section list and the default up front, then the drill-down and resource-URI caveat. Nothing is wasted, though the enum values are largely restated from the schema and the semicolon-chained form is dense.

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?

Placeholder.

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 carries the full burden, yet it only explains section (listing values, adding the default) and the drill-down role of featureId/screenId. sessionId and projectRoot, two of five parameters, receive no meaning at all, and the relationship between a drill-down id and the section argument is left implicit.

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 and resource ('Read a compact app-map section') and enumerates the exact sections available, which lets an agent distinguish it from qa_app_map_build and qa_app_map_update. It stops short of naming or contrasting qa_app_map_query, the closest read sibling, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'summary (default)' tells the agent which section to use when nothing is specified, and 'featureId or screenId drills into one node' signals the drill-down path. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-a-sibling guidance, and no statement of prerequisites for sessionId or projectRoot.

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