Get code map

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains what the tool returns, what it excludes ('NO bodies'), the fact it uses a prebuilt index, and that it is cheaper than alternatives. It could add detail about index freshness or error behavior, but the core 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 concise and front-loaded: it states the resource, the exact content of the result, and the key exclusion in the first sentence. The second sentence adds file-specific behavior, and the final sentence gives the practical usage timing. 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains the returned symbols, line numbers, signatures, imports, importers, and the exclusion of bodies. It also provides guidance on when to call it. This gives an agent sufficient context to invoke it correctly.

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 'target' parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including the '.' special value. The description reinforces the file-or-directory target concept and the prebuilt-index context, but it does not add meaningful param semantics beyond the schema.

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: returning the structure of a file or directory from a prebuilt index, including symbols, line numbers, and one-line signatures while explicitly excluding bodies. It is specific about the resource and content, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_deps, find_symbol, or get_references, some of which may overlap with the reported imports/importers.

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 gives an explicit usage directive: 'Use BEFORE reading any file to decide which exact lines you need.' It also frames when it is better than reading files or globbing directories. However, it does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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