get_project_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it explicitly discloses that the operation is read-only and that it returns 'No project map found.' when not initialized. This covers side-effect safety and a key edge case, though it doesn't detail the returned layout structure beyond that.

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?

Three short sentences, each adding value: the action, the missing-file behavior, and the read-only guarantee. No filler, though 'Read-only' is slightly redundant with 'Read'.

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 definition is complete for executing a no-parameter read operation, but it lacks selection guidance relative to the many sibling read tools. It doesn't say when to prefer this over get_context or get_summary, which is a notable gap given the sibling list.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies.

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 action ('Read') and the target resource ('the structural layout (PROJECT_MAP.md)'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly compare against siblings like get_summary or get_context, but the resource name provides enough distinction.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_context, get_summary, or get_plan. It only describes what the tool does, leaving selection to inference.

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