Repository map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds non-obvious behavior: it 'Respects .gitignore' and caps output by a token budget. This gives useful operational context beyond the safety annotation without contradicting it.

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?

Four short sentences front-load the purpose and usage, then add behavioral constraints. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name; every sentence 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 read-only, single-path repository tool with full schema coverage and a safety annotation, the description fully covers output composition, filtering behavior, budget cap, and usage timing. No critical call-time fact is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description reinforces the budget concept but adds little parameter-specific detail beyond the schema's own descriptions of depth and budget.

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 and resource ('Get a compact map of a repository') and enumerates the output composition ('filtered file tree, language stats, entry points, and key symbols'), which makes the tool's role distinct from the more targeted sibling tools. The 'in one call' phrasing signals it is the aggregate overview rather than a single-symbol or single-file utility.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it: 'Use it before reading files to decide which files matter.' It does not enumerate alternatives or when-not conditions, so it falls one step short of full routing guidance.

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