crbro_global_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention the caching behavior implied by the 'rebuild' parameter (i.e., that the result may be cached and rebuilding is a forced refresh). This is a significant gap for a tool that appears to have a side-effectful option.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and scope without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional boolean, no output schema, no annotations), and the purpose is clear. However, the description omits any mention of the return format or the caching/rebuild behavior, which are useful contextual details given the absence of an output schema and annotations. It is adequate but not fully 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?

The schema fully describes the only parameter ('rebuild' with its explanation), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds nothing about the parameter, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('View') and identifies a distinct resource ('global neural map'), with meaningful detail about its content ('clusters of related topics and bridges between domains'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like crbro_neurons (individual neurons) or crbro_connections (individual connections), which likely focus on lower-level data.

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 the tool is for getting a high-level overview, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor any exclusions (e.g., 'for detailed neuron listings, use crbro_neurons'). It also doesn't mention when to use the 'rebuild' option versus relying on cache, which would be relevant usage context.

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