overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Print" and "counts/stats" strongly imply a read-only, non-mutating display operation, which is meaningful transparency, but it says nothing about cost, output size, whether it respects the initiative scope, or whether anything is written.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the core action ("Print a... map of the substrate") is front-loaded before the content list. The tier/type/forest jargon is dense but every token carries content.

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?

With no output schema, the description does list the map's contents, which helps an agent anticipate the return. However, it omits any hint of output size, formatting beyond "terminal-readable," or how the optional initiative scope affects the result, leaving a read tool under-explained.

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 100%, and the single optional "initiative" parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the cross-initiative default behavior. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ("Print") and names the resource ("map of the substrate"), then enumerates exactly what the map contains: counts by tier/type, provenance forests, open questions, edge stats. It is not a tautology of the name "overview," but it never distinguishes itself from sibling summary/inspection tools like board, history, or recent.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no condition selecting this over the many siblings (board, board_status, history, recent, ideas), and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the use case purely from the output list.

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