codemap_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does partially by clarifying that the tool reports existence, mtime, and completeness rather than returning CodeMap content. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens when the CodeMap is missing, or any authentication or error behavior. This is adequate for a likely innocuous status check but leaves gaps around edge-case behavior.

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 sentence that packs the resource, the condition (committed), the parameters (operator + architecture), and the returned attributes (existence, mtime, completeness) with no wasted words. Everything present is informative and directly relevant.

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 simple two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description provides the core return semantics, but it does not describe the response shape, success/failure indicators, or behavior when no committed CodeMap exists. It is functionally complete for a basic status check but could benefit from a note on the return format.

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 does so by mapping the two parameters to 'this operator + architecture', indicating that 'project' likely refers to an operator and 'architecture' to an architecture. It does not define valid values, formats, or the relationship between the fields, leaving some ambiguity.

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 states a clear, specific purpose: it checks whether a committed .uo CodeMap exists for a given operator and architecture, and reports mtime and completeness. It is not a tautology and goes beyond the name by naming the exact resource and attributes. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like query_codemap or codemap_doctor, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 wording 'Whether a committed .uo CodeMap exists' implies an agent should use this tool to check existence/status, but there is no explicit guidance on when to reach for it instead of query_codemap or codemap_doctor. It lacks any mention of preconditions, alternatives, or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage from context.

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