Pharaoh - Your AI breaks things it can't see

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

Annotations indicate non-readonly, non-destructive operation. Description adds valuable context: operation takes 1-3 minutes, repo becomes available to all Pharaoh users (shared visibility), and constraint that only public repos are supported. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Clear two-section structure with purpose statement front-loaded. 'CALL THIS WHEN' bullets are scannable. No redundant text—every sentence provides concrete guidance on scope, timing, or sibling differentiation.

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?

Comprehensive for a zero-parameter trigger tool: covers prerequisites (public repo, not already mapped), side effects (global visibility), timing expectations, and follow-up actions (use get_codebase_map). Minor gap: does not mention error handling for private repos or rate limiting.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters with 100% description coverage. Baseline score of 4 applies per rubric. Description implies GitHub URL is required but does not explicitly document parameter mechanics, which could confuse agents about how the repo identifier is passed.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Map' with clear resource 'public GitHub repository' and scope 'into Pharaoh.' Explicitly distinguishes from sibling get_codebase_map by stating this is for repos 'that isn't in Pharaoh yet' and directing users to get_codebase_map after mapping completes.

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?

Contains explicit 'CALL THIS WHEN:' section with three specific trigger conditions, including clear alternation logic with get_codebase_map ('doesn't show a well-known public repo'). Directly maps user phrases like 'map this repo' to tool invocation.

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