get_repo_map

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

With no annotations, the description adds behavioral context: the tool ranks summaries by PageRank and packs them to a token budget. However, it does not disclose potential costs, auth needs, or whether it mutates state, which is a gap for a read-oriented tool.

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 sentences: the first defines the tool's output, the second gives a usage cue. No redundancy, every word contributes 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?

Given the simple input schema and no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (summaries) and the ranking method (PageRank), but lacks details on output format (e.g., text, JSON) or how the budget affects results, leaving some ambiguity.

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% with one parameter 'budget' described as 'token budget (default 2000)'. The description adds the meaning of 'packed to a token budget', which aligns with the schema, but does not provide additional constraints or examples.

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 the tool provides file/package summaries ranked by PageRank, which is a specific purpose. It also gives a use case ('orient on an unfamiliar repo'), but does not explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools, though its unique output distinguishes it.

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?

The description implies usage for orientation ('Reach for it to orient on an unfamiliar repo') but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, leaving usage context implicit.

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