full_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it discloses the return composition and the relative cost tradeoff versus get_snapshot ('it is cheaper'). It never explicitly states the operation is read-only or non-destructive, though 'orientation' and the preview-oriented returns strongly imply it.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler; the trigger condition and the sibling routing are front-loaded ahead of the output enumeration. Every clause earns its place.

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 output schema, the description fully accounts for return values (git stats, structure, samples, test mapping) and the decision context for choosing it over get_snapshot. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the single 'dir' parameter is already documented as the absolute project root path, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format or resolution details beyond that, matching the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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?

States a specific verb (one-shot orientation) plus the resource (a project), and enumerates the concrete outputs: git history stats, structure with file counts, ~60-line code previews, and test-to-source mapping. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_snapshot by condition (unmapped vs mapped project).

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('WITHOUT a concept map', signaled by get_snapshot returning exists:false) and an explicit exclusion ('On a mapped project, prefer get_snapshot'). The alternative and the condition that selects it are both named, leaving nothing to inference.

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