repo_map

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

The description goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) by detailing the ranking algorithm (fanIn * 2 + fanOut + 0.1), symbol selection preference for exported declarations, default token budget (1024), and cap (16384). This provides substantial behavioral context.

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 long, well-structured, and free of fluff. The first sentence conveys purpose and output, the second adds key behavioral details. 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 7 optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides a good high-level overview and critical behavioral details. It covers the tool's purpose, ranking, and constraints, though it lacks explanations for some parameters. Overall, it is fairly complete for a read-only orientation tool.

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 only partially explains parameters: it mentions tokenBudget default and cap, but does not elaborate on the other six parameters (projectId, projectRef, maxFiles, etc.). With 0% schema description coverage, more parameter context would be beneficial.

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 specifies the tool as a code-intelligence tool for repo orientation, emitting a token-budgeted outline of an indexed project. It uses a specific verb ('emit') and resource ('outline of the indexed project'), and distinguishes itself as a first-turn context tool for unfamiliar codebases.

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 states the tool is intended 'as first-turn context for agents meeting an unfamiliar codebase,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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