engi_project_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, what happens if the root path is invalid, or if there are side effects. The description is too brief to convey any safety or behavior information.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it may be too concise, omitting needed details.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the structure of the returned tree, what 'managed' means, or how parameters like 'kind' affect results. Agents may misuse the tool without 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (only root has a description). The tool description does not explain the meaning or expected values of 'kind' or 'max_depth'. Agents would need to infer purpose from the names, which may be insufficient.

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 clearly states it returns a tree/map of managed Markdown documents. The verb 'return' is generic, but combined with 'tree/map' and 'managed Markdown documents', it conveys a specific purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like engi_doc_read (read individual docs) and engi_graph_query (query graph), though not explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or which sibling tools to prefer for different tasks. For example, if a user wants a flat list, they might need engi_doc_read instead.

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