external_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool analyzes and maps external dependencies and risk, which suggests a read-only diagnostic behavior, but it does not explicitly state whether it has side effects, requires network access, or reports results in a particular format.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the action and lists concrete item categories. No filler or redundant details are present.

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 zero-parameter analysis tool, the description is reasonably complete: it explains what is mapped and why to run it. However, with no output schema, it could further clarify the output format or how the risk interpretation is presented.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so parameter documentation is unnecessary. The description still usefully indicates what categories will be examined, which is the relevant semantic content.

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's purpose: mapping external project connections (npm packages, environment variables, outgoing API calls). The verb 'cartographie' is specific and the resource scope is explicit, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'dependencies' or 'graph'.

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 gives clear usage context: 'A lancer pour comprendre les dependances externes et detecter les risques.' It tells the agent when to use the tool, though it does not mention conditions where another tool would be preferable or provide exclusions.

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