orient

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It meaningfully adds context about output types (counts, entry-points, blind spots, structural maps) and the budget parameter, which are not covered by annotations.

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 concise and well-structured. The critical instruction 'ALWAYS the first call on a codebase' is front-loaded, and each sentence serves a purpose: explaining modes, blind spots, and sibling tool ordering.

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's complexity (three modes, multiple output types, sibling tools), the description is remarkably complete. It covers each mode's output, mentions limitations (blind spots), and provides a recommended workflow. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the behavioral differences of each parameter combination (no args vs. seed vs. full) and clarifying the budget default behavior, going beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: getting an overview of a codebase. It details three distinct modes (no args, seed, full) and explicitly contrasts with sibling tools (find, impact, trace), making it easy for an agent to select the right tool.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'ALWAYS the first call on a codebase' and explains when to use each variant. It also tells when to fall back to grep for blind spots and names alternative tools for subsequent steps.

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