codegraph_repomap

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. The description explains the tool generates a YAML map, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, requires no special permissions, or has any side effects. No contradictions exist, but the description would benefit from an explicit statement that it only reads repository data.

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 with a concise intro and a clean 'Args:' section. Every sentence is purposeful, with no unnecessary verbosity. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a list for parameters, making it easy to scan. A minor improvement would be to mention the output format once at the start, which it already does.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, output format, and both parameters. It does not explicitly cover error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., the project must be indexed), but these are not critical for basic usage and are likely implied by the context of the codegraph system.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining each parameter: 'project: Project name (e.g. "my-app")' and 'limit: Maximum number of top files to include (default 20)'. It adds examples and semantic meaning, although it leaves some ambiguity about 'most important' and how the limit is applied.

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's purpose: 'Generate a YAML-formatted repository map showing the most important files and their symbols.' It specifies the verb 'Generate', the resource 'repository map', and the output format (YAML). This distinguishes it from siblings like codegraph_query and codegraph_explain, which focus on querying or explaining code.

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 provides usage context: 'Helps understand the global structure of a project without reading all files.' This gives a clear scenario for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or contrast with alternative tools, which is a minor gap.

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