Map an Allowed Whatbox Directory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds useful behavioral constraints: it does not read file contents, avoids sensitive directories and symlinks, and is bounded. This goes beyond annotations by specifying what the tool deliberately avoids, which is valuable for safe invocation.

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 of 19 words. It conveys the action, resource, constraints, and safety properties without redundancy. Every phrase adds meaning, making it highly concise and structured.

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 moderately complex with 3 parameters, no schema descriptions, but an output schema present. Annotations cover safety, and the description explains the core behavior and key boundaries. Minor gaps remain around parameter semantics and the precise meaning of 'allowed root', but overall it is sufficiently complete for a read-only mapping tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by mentioning 'bounded' and 'below an allowed root', hinting at maxDepth, maxNodes, and rootIndex. However, it does not explicitly map each parameter to its purpose or explain how they interact, leaving room for misinterpretation.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Create a bounded directory-only map and Mermaid diagram'. It also defines scope constraints ('below an allowed root', 'without reading file contents', 'not traversing sensitive directories or symlinks'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like whatbox_list_directory that likely list files and contents.

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 safely mapping a directory structure without reading files, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of 'use when...' or 'prefer this over...', leaving the usage context implicit.

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