query_codemap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does state that the tool is read-only and accepts only four shapes. It does not cover invalid-input outcomes or authentication expectations, but the main safety-relevant behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded with the read-only nature and allowed shapes. Every sentence adds a useful constraint or clarification, with no filler.

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?

The description covers the main query patterns but leaves line_end undefined, does not explain project/architecture usage, and the schema's 'Required.' note on architecture conflicts with the declared zero required parameters. An agent can use the main forms but may be uncertain about combinations and output behavior.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining pattern syntax, the file+line combination, and the omission rule for the index case. It does not describe line_end or clarify the requiredness of architecture and project, but the core query semantics are well covered.

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 specific read-only query operation on the operator CodeMap and enumerates the four accepted input shapes. The read-only qualifier sharply differentiates it from mutation siblings like update_operator.

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 explicit valid invocation forms and explicitly says not to pass natural-language sentences. It does not name alternative tools for other use cases, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know how to use this tool.

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