get_repo_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states that it returns a JSON repo index and mentions optional scoping, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it performs network calls, requires authentication, or has performance implications. Given the lack of annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with zero fluff. Every word earns its place. It front-loads the purpose and includes a usage hint at the end.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values, but given the tool's complexity (returning a repo map) and the lack of annotations, the description could do more to explain prerequisites or the nature of the index. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate for parameter semantics. The description mentions 'root_path' and 'dir_prefix' in the text, which adds some meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the format or expected values for these parameters in detail, so it only partially compensates.

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 what the tool does: 'Return the JSON repo index for root_path, optionally scoped to dir_prefix.' It specifies the resource (repo index) and the operation (return), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by indicating it returns an index, which is unique among sibling tools.

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 includes 'Call this before exploring,' which provides clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient given the tool's role in the workflow.

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