map_overview

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is cheap, uses a static index, has no language-server cost, and is fast. It warns that the index may lag recent edits and advises using other tools for live confirmation. However, it does not explicitly mention what the tool does not do (e.g., provide live line numbers) but implies it via the warning.

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 a single paragraph of 5 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, limitations, and links to siblings. It provides sufficient context for an overview tool, enabling the agent to decide when and how to use it.

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 description coverage is 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds some context about token budgeting and speed but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema provides. It indirectly adds value by explaining the tool's nature, but parameter semantics are not significantly enhanced.

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 that the tool returns a structural summary from a static index, specifying it as a starting point for unfamiliar codebases. It distinguishes itself from siblings like map_neighbors and resolve by explaining how node IDs are used with those 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?

Explicitly says 'START HERE for any unfamiliar codebase or feature area.' Provides guidance on when to use siblings: 'Use the returned node IDs with map_neighbors to explore relationships and with resolve to jump to exact live locations.' Also warns about index lag and suggests confirming with resolve or nav_definition for live data.

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