repo_clusters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It states it is a 'cheap overview' but does not disclose important traits such as whether it is read-only, side effects, caching behavior, or data sources beyond the mentioned inputs. The description lacks depth on what the tool actually does internally.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise and efficient, though it could potentially include more detail without becoming verbose. The structure is clean.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the return value looks like, but it only vaguely mentions 'ownership clusters' and 'representative files' without specifying format. The three optional parameters are not explained in context. For a moderately complex clustering tool, this is insufficient guidance for an AI agent.

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 the 'include' parameter has a description). The tool description adds no information about any of the three parameters (limit, include, min_cluster_size), failing to compensate for the low schema coverage. No parameter meanings or defaults are clarified beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool's purpose: mapping a repo into ownership clusters based on path proximity, graph edges, and git co-touch. It distinguishes itself by specifying what it produces (subsystems and representative files) and uses a specific verb ('Map'). This contrasts with sibling tools like repo_brief, which likely provide a different overview.

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 implies usage via 'cheap overview' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like repo_brief, nor does it provide conditions for when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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