repo_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Tree-style map' hints at output shape, but there is no mention of read-only semantics, depth limits, ignored files, or behavior on large repositories. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is 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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though brevity here comes at the cost of coverage elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return format need not be restated. However, with no annotations and an unexplained root parameter, the definition leaves the agent guessing about scoping and read safety.

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?

The single 'root' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, so the agent gets no explanation of what a root path does or that it defaults to the current directory. The description adds nothing beyond the schema.

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+resource: displays a tree-style map of directories and files. It is understandable on its own, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling list_files, which produces a flat listing rather than a tree.

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 versus list_files or search. Nothing indicates whether it is for orientation in an unfamiliar repo, or any size/depth limitations. The agent must infer the use case entirely.

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