Crew recon

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, yet the description adds genuine behavioral context: a two-tier execution model (local GPU first, ChatGPT fallback) and an important quality caveat that results are unverified leads. It does not mention latency, auth, or provider failure behavior, but it meaningfully exceeds what the annotation alone conveys.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and zero filler. Each sentence contributes a distinct fact: what it does, when to use it, and a caveat about result reliability.

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 usefully sketches the return content (files, functions, stage coverage, risks) and warns the results are leads rather than proof. It stops short of describing return structure or pagination, but for a read-only recon tool it is close to complete.

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%, so the schema already documents question, paths, and workspace with their own descriptions and an example. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'map the code relevant to a question', and enumerates the output content (files, functions, stage coverage, risks). This is clearly distinct from a citation checker or diff reviewer, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with named siblings like crew_second_opinion or crew_review_diff.

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 a clear when-to-use condition: 'Use it before reading lots of files yourself, to save your context.' It also sets expectations with 'Results are leads to confirm, not proof.' However, it names no sibling alternative and gives no explicit when-not-to-use, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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