get_project_map

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: output is compressed, read-only, and function bodies are folded. It also explains three compression tiers and the importance of not editing based on this output, which is transparent.

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 well-structured, starting with the main purpose, then detailing tiers, and ending with usage guidance. It is concise but includes necessary warnings and advice, earning a high score.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to use it, what the output looks like, and how it relates to other tools. It is complete for an agent to use 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the effect of compression tiers (e.g., 'removes comments', 'folds function bodies') and reiterating the purpose of path prefixes and unfolded files, improving clarity 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 'Returns a compressed structural overview of the workspace' and details the compression tiers and intended use. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on structural overview rather than other search or write operations.

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 advises when to use ('proactively to understand architecture'), warns against editing folded output, and recommends the alternative 'injector_retrieve' for full source before edits. This provides strong usage guidance.

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