architecture_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety/behavior burden. It discloses what the call produces and signals efficiency by replacing 'a dozen exploratory file reads', making the operation's analytic, non-mutating nature clear through the 'you get...' framing. It stops short of stating any performance or read-only caveats explicitly.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the supporting details (what it returns) are listed compactly. Each clause earns its place.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the key contextual information: when to use it, what to expect, and why it is valuable. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and the single include_diagram parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Orient yourself in an unfamiliar repo') and enumerates concrete outputs (module sizes/layering, import cycles, PageRank hotspots, entry points). It clearly differentiates from symbol-level siblings like find_symbol and who_calls by positioning itself as the repo-level starting point.

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?

'Start here' and 'one call replaces a dozen exploratory file reads' provide explicit context for when to use it: early exploration of an unfamiliar codebase. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative, so it misses the full 5.

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