Reconstruct source tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful traits like 'safe' and 'bounded', hinting at path safety and output size limits, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens for missing mapId, or any error behavior.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action verb 'Reconstruct'. It conveys the core purpose efficiently and is appropriately sized.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 3 parameters, the description is under-specified. It does not describe the returned tree structure, what 'safe' or 'bounded' concretely mean, or how maxFiles affects the result, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies includeContents controls whether sourcesContent is returned, but maxFiles is not explained and mapId is only inferred from the tool name. With three parameters, this leaves significant 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 a specific action: reconstruct safe relative source paths and optionally return bounded sourcesContent from a parsed source map. It distinguishes from siblings like sourcemap_parse_v4 or sourcemap_lookup by focusing on tree reconstruction, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 phrase 'from a parsed source map' implies it is intended to be used after parsing, but no explicit guidance is given on when to prefer this over tools like sourcemap_lookup or sourcemap_diff. There are no stated exclusions or alternative conditions.

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