cuemap_init_preview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool does not ingest content and that it produces grouped paths for user review, which are both meaningful behavioral traits. It could add more detail about return structure or side-effect guarantees, but the core non-ingesting behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and key non-ingesting behavior, and the second provides actionable workflow instructions. Every sentence 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough information to understand when to call it, what it does, and how to use the result, namely presenting grouped paths to the user. It does not specify the exact format of the grouped paths, but the workflow guidance compensates for that gap.

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 input schema already describes all five parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description only indirectly references selection adjustment via includedPaths and ignoredPatterns, but it does not meaningfully enhance the schema-provided semantics.

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 states a specific action, 'Preview supported repository files', and a key behavioral qualifier, 'without ingesting content'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from cuemap_init and the ingestion tools by positioning it as the pre-initialization preview step.

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 explicitly says to call this before first-time repository initialization and before calling cuemap_init, and gives a clear workflow: present the grouped paths to the user and ask for confirmation or adjustment. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the timing and workflow are unambiguous.

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