omni_map_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool can both read and replace, that the file is persistent shared state containing the goal and specification, and that correcting previous agents' errors is expected behavior. It could add a warning that replace overwrites existing content, but 'replace' already communicates mutation.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the operation, the second gives timing/context, and the third enumerates sections. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant 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 tool with no output schema and an explicit input schema, the description sufficiently covers the artifact, the action modes, when to use it, and the section semantics. It does not explicitly describe reading a single section versus the whole file, but the schema already covers the whole-file read behavior and section replacement semantics, so this is not a blocking gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by mapping each section number to its intended content (Identity, user goal, build specification, coordinate conventions, etc.), which helps an agent choose the correct section. It also explains why the file matters by naming the goal and coordinate conventions that live there.

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 names the exact artifact (MAP_OVERVIEW.md) and states both modes of operation: read the whole file or replace a numbered section. This is a specific verb+resource pairing that clearly sets it apart from generic sibling tools like omni_map_docs or omni_map_guide.

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?

It gives explicit guidance on when to write (BEFORE building) and when to correct (whenever a previous agent recorded the goal wrongly), which tells an agent when this tool is the right memory-maintenance tool. It does not enumerate when not to use it or name alternatives, but the situational guidance is clear.

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