suggest_codemap_topics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description's main addition is stating the basis for suggestions (call graph hubs, etc.) and the prerequisite. No contradictions. Minor gap: doesn't mention any other behavioral traits like output structure.

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?

Two short sentences plus a prerequisite line. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, prerequisite, and basis of suggestions. No output schema exists, but the tool name implies a list of topics. Minor gap: no explicit mention of return format or example, but overall complete for its complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the verb 'suggest', the resource 'codemap topics', and the context 'based on call graph hubs, core modules, and common entry patterns'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'generate_codemap' by suggesting to use it before.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use before generate_codemap to discover what flows are worth exploring' and provides a prerequisite: 'Requires: index_repository must be called first.' This gives clear when-to-use and precondition guidance.

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