Generate Repo Map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the core mechanism (PageRank over reference graphs) and key behaviors like focusFiles being excluded from output while getting a 20x boost. It could be more transparent about performance implications (e.g., parsing large repos) or caching behavior beyond the forceRefresh parameter.

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 reasonably concise at two sentences, front-loading the core mechanism and purpose. It efficiently covers key use cases without unnecessary detail. Minor improvement could be made by adding a brief sentence about output format or limitations, but the current structure is effective.

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 moderate complexity (9 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and key behaviors. The schema covers parameter descriptions well, reducing the burden on the description. Without an output schema, the description could be more explicit about what the map contains (e.g., code definitions, file paths) but remains sufficient.

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?

With 89% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. Most parameters have clear descriptions in the schema, but the description adds value by explaining the ranking boost multipliers (e.g., 'x20 boost' for focusFiles, 'x5' for priorityFiles, 'x10' for priorityIdentifiers) and the exclusion behavior of focusFiles. This extra context justifies the baseline score but does not significantly exceed it.

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 generates a 'ranked repository map of code definitions via PageRank over cross-file reference graphs.' It specifies the primary purpose (understanding codebase structure, discovering entry points, finding related code) and distinguishes itself from sibling 'search_identifiers' by emphasizing ranking and graph analysis rather than simple search.

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 implies usage contexts like 'understanding codebase structure' and 'finding code related to specific files or identifiers,' giving clear guidance on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly compare to 'search_identifiers' as an alternative, which would elevate it to a 5.

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