Documentation map

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

The description discloses that the tool returns counts and lines with a specific format, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has no side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency, and this aspect is not fully addressed.

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 concise and well-structured, presenting the tool's purpose, its output format, and use cases in a clear and efficient manner without unnecessary verbosity.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides all necessary context: what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it, and how it relates to the sibling tools. No additional information is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema requires no explanation. According to the rule, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters to describe.

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 that the tool provides a map of the documentation corpus, including counts by type and module and one line per document. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining that it is used to enumerate what exists, pick filter values for search_docs, or find a file path before calling read_doc.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives: use it to enumerate what exists, pick filter values for search_docs, or find a path before read_doc, while directing specific questions to search_docs first.

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