High-level repo map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes the overview output and the drill-down behavior, including how `top` caps the list. It omits details about the `depth` parameter and does not explicitly state read-only nature, but the overview framing implies non-destructive use.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no wasted words. Every clause adds value: the overview scope, the drill-down usage, the `top` cap, and the session-start guidance.

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?

For a read-only overview tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the primary outputs and the drill-down mode. It mentions the link to skeleton tools, which helps agent planning. However, it leaves the `depth` parameter unexplained and does not detail the exact return format for the drill-down view, which is a minor gap.

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 67% (top and path described). The description reinforces `path` and `top` by explaining their role in drill-down, which adds contextual meaning. However, `depth` is completely undocumented in both the schema and description, and the description does not significantly extend beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Birds-eye overview' with specific outputs: 'top directories with file counts, total lines, and symbol counts.' It also distinctly frames itself as 'the bridge between orienting at the directory level and picking a file to skeleton,' which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_file_skeleton and outline_file.

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?

It explicitly says 'Start every session here,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains the conditional behavior of passing `path` to drill into a directory. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the 'bridge... to picking a file to skeleton' implies the next step.

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