repo_brief

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

No annotations provided. Description mentions output includes size/coupling/churn/memory signals and suggested next tools, but does not disclose idempotency or side effects. Given orientation context, read-only behavior is implied but not stated.

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 sentences, no fluff. First sentence packs purpose, input, output, and suggestions. Second sentence is a clear directive. Front-loaded with key information.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and many siblings, the description adequately states purpose but lacks details on parameter meanings and response format. The modes are listed but unexplained, and limit default is not mentioned.

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 description coverage is 33% (only 'include' has a description). The description mentions the four mode options but does not define them, nor explains 'limit' parameter. The 'include' parameter is partially described in schema, but description adds no new meaning.

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 it's for orientation in an unfamiliar repo, providing ranked files by mode with signals and next-tool suggestions. The unique purpose distinguishes it from sibling tools like repo_clusters or semantic_search.

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 'Start here when you don't know the codebase,' indicating when to use. Does not exclude alternatives, but the context strongly implies it's the first step.

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