Repository map

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the entry format, the budget constraint ('within budget'), and a coverage caveat, but says nothing about auth, performance, or how budget truncation interacts with include_omitted_ids.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output contract, with the caveat last. No filler.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, leaving four parameters unexplained and omitting any routing guidance to the many sibling discovery tools is a substantial gap, even though the format and coverage caveat are handled well.

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 0% with 7 parameters. Only format='full' vs compact is explained and budget_tokens is hinted at via 'within budget'. query, profile, include_tests, and include_omitted_ids are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Ranked definitions for a repo_id') and the two output shapes, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_file_skeleton and get_symbol_context. It does not explicitly name the sibling it complements, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'For orientation, not proof of full coverage' implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as get_file_skeleton or inspect_symbol. Usage is suggested rather than stated.

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