dna_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost none of it. 'Summary' weakly implies a non-mutating read, but there is no statement about scope, cost, format, or what happens when the project parameter is omitted (required parameters = 0), leaving the mutation/safety profile entirely undefined.

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?

It is short and free of padding, which is a positive, but it is a sentence fragment rather than a front-loaded statement of action and scope. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 annotations, no output schema, a 0%-documented parameter, and no usage guidance, this one-line fragment is not sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. Almost everything an agent would need sits outside the description.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'project' parameter has no description, so the description must compensate and does not. Saying 'the ingested project' does not tell the agent whether project expects a name, ID, path, or whether it may be omitted to summarize everything.

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 phrase 'Architecture summary of the ingested project' names a resource and an output type, so the agent gets a rough idea of what comes back. But it is a noun fragment with no action verb and no differentiation from the sibling tools (dna_impact, dna_decisions, dna_plan), all of which sound equally like project-analysis reads.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. 'project must be ingested first'), and no routing to alternatives such as dna_impact or dna_plan. The agent is left to guess from the name alone which of the four sibling tools to call.

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