repo_map

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that html=true writes an interactive architecture map and that the tool ranks files by import centrality, which is valuable behavioral context. It doesn't mention side effects of the default mode or rate limits, but the write behavior is covered.

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, front-loaded with the core output and usage instruction. Very little waste, though the phrasing is compact to the point of being terse.

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 read-only mapping tool with no output schema and full parameter coverage, the description provides enough to invoke correctly and understand the html side effect. It could be improved with a note on typical output size or performance considerations, but it is largely complete.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (html and limit). The description adds the html behavior (writes map.html) but doesn't add details for limit beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it produces a project map covering languages, symbol counts, and key files ranked by import centrality. Distinguishes itself from read-oriented siblings, though it could more explicitly differentiate from file_skeleton or find_symbol.

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 'Call FIRST to orient,' which gives clear usage priority. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives for deeper analysis.

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