atr_repo_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint:false, and destructiveHint:false, so safety is fully covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — nothing about output size, truncation, or what the budget parameter does to the result. With annotations doing the work, this is adequate but thin.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the highest-value routing cue ('Start here') placed where the agent will see it. Nothing extraneous to trim.

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 read-only two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and entry-point role but leaves the result shape vague (tree? flat list? per-file) and the budget parameter unexplained. An agent knows when to call it but not what it will get back or how to size the response.

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 only 50%: 'path' is documented in the schema, but 'budget' has no description anywhere. That is the single most consequential parameter here (it presumably controls output volume for a tool that returns an entire repo layout), and the description never mentions it, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 resource and payload: 'Project layout with each code file's top-level functions/classes.' An agent can distinguish it from atr_read_file or atr_search_code because it declares structure-level (symbol outline) output rather than raw file contents. Lacks an explicit verb and no sibling is named, so it stops short of a 5.

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 in a codebase' is an explicit routing instruction that tells the agent this is the entry point before drilling into files. It gives clear positive context but contains no exclusions — nothing says to prefer atr_search_code when the agent already knows the symbol name.

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