nexus_repo_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds the token budget constraint and the PageRank ordering behavior, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what happens when focusFiles is used, nor any prerequisites (e.g., whether an index must be built) that might affect 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?

Three crisp sentences: a noun-phrase summary, a detail on what's shown, and a positioning statement. Every sentence earns its place, and key information is front-loaded. No redundancy or wordiness.

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 small parameter set, good annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and content. It explains the ranking and token budget, but omits potential prerequisite constraints and the precise effect of focusFiles. Still, it's nearly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions for maxTokens and focusFiles. The description reinforces the 'token budget' concept but does not add new meaning beyond the schema, such as how focusFiles affects prioritization or the exact format of the map.

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 produces a 'ranked repo map within a token budget' and shows 'top symbols per file, PageRank-ordered.' This is specific and conveys the resource and output nature. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like nexus_workspace_overview or nexus_context_pack, so it misses full differentiation, but the distinctive ranking and per-file symbol emphasis set it apart.

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 phrase 'Most important context feature' implies this should be the first tool used for repo context, but there is no explicit 'when to use vs. not use' guidance or mention of alternatives. Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated, so it's adequate but not strong.

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