Repository map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral-disclosure burden. It discloses a 'bounded context budget', describes the compact entry shape, and warns that results are not proof of full coverage. It does not mention permissions or error behavior, but for a read-oriented map tool the main behavioral caveat is clearly conveyed.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the primary purpose, then provide the output format, the format switch, and the key caveat. There is no filler, no restating of the title, and every clause adds functional value.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is not fully complete: it leaves query and profile semantics undefined and does not enumerate all return fields. But it provides enough for a basic call with repo_id, explains the compact/full output difference, and gives a necessary truncation caveat, so it is minimally viable rather than severely deficient.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for the bare parameter names. It does explain format values and indirectly hints at budget_tokens, and sources repo_id from list_repositories. However, query, profile, include_tests, and include_omitted_ids are not semantically described, leaving most of the 7 parameters underdocumented.

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 opening verb 'Return' plus object 'ranked definitions' and scope 'for a repo_id from list_repositories' states exactly what the tool does and ties it to its prerequisite data source. The closing caveat 'Use for orientation, not proof of full coverage' helps distinguish this from deeper lookup siblings. It is specific and resource-scoped, not a tautology.

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?

'Use for orientation, not proof of full coverage' gives a clear context for when this tool is appropriate, and 'request format="full" for signatures, per-symbol evidence, and detailed rank_basis' tells the agent how to get more detail. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as find_symbols or search_source, so it lacks the explicit exclusion needed for a 5.

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