get_repository_map

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

Discloses the output content (languages, entry points, hotspots, etc.) and its purpose. No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It doesn't mention side effects, permissions, or performance implications, but given the read-only overview nature, the transparency is adequate.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences. First sentence states purpose, second enumerates contents. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema and the simple parameter, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the parameter is self-explanatory. No gaps for an onboarding overview tool.

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 100% with one parameter 'max_items' fully described in schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a compact overview of the repository for onboarding.' It lists specific items returned (languages, entry points, hotspots, etc.) and explicitly says it's for orienting agents in unfamiliar repos. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_symbol' or 'get_dependency_graph' which focus on specific aspects.

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?

Implicitly suggests use for onboarding and orientation in unfamiliar repos. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among the many sibling tools. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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