repo_map

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

The description discloses read-only behavior, default token budget (1024), maximum cap (16384), ranking algorithm (import-graph PageRank with bidirectional personalization), and symbol selection preference (exported declarations). This adds substantial value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), providing deep behavioral transparency.

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 paragraph of three sentences, efficiently packing purpose, algorithm, default, and parameters. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though some might find it dense. No wasted words.

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 the tool has an output schema (so return values don't need full explanation), and the description covers purpose, algorithm, defaults, and parameter roles, it is fairly complete. It could mention that projectRef and projectId are identifiers, but the context is sufficient for most use cases.

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 description explains the purpose of focusFiles, focusRoutes, focusSymbols, focusDatabaseObjects, and tokenBudget, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it does not document all 10 parameters (e.g., pathGlob, maxFiles, maxSymbolsPerFile are not mentioned), leaving gaps.

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 emits a token-budgeted outline of the indexed project (ranked files + key symbols) specifically for first-turn context when agents face an unfamiliar codebase. It uniquely distinguishes itself from sibling tools like flow_map or graph_neighbors by focusing on project orientation with a specific outline format.

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 it is for 'first-turn context for agents meeting an unfamiliar codebase,' providing clear usage context. It also explains how focus parameters personalize the output, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like ast_find_pattern or cross_search.

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