repo_map

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

The description asserts 'Read-only, deterministic, zero side effects,' but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false. This directly contradicts the structured safety signal an agent relies on, so the behavioral disclosure is untrustworthy rather than merely incomplete.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then output, in a logical order with no filler. It is somewhat dense and the staleness caveat is long, but every sentence carries actionable content.

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?

With no output schema present, the description supplies the return shape ('markdown summary of languages, hub files, and entry points') plus a staleness caveat about changed working trees. That is exactly the context needed to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are required.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Retrieve a high-level structural map of the repository') and enumerates the content (languages, hub files, entry points). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like repo_search and repo_neighbours, which it explicitly names.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('call this first at session start... before detailed queries'), explicit when-not-to-use with named alternatives ('do not use to search code (use repo_search) or inspect call graphs (use repo_neighbours)'). Routing is unambiguous.

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