code.map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Instant' and 'understands MVC, layered, microservices patterns automatically' hint at speed and zero-config behavior, but it never discloses permissions, cost/scale limits on large repositories, or whether the scan touches the filesystem beyond reading.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary output list front-loaded and the pattern-recognition capability appended. Little waste, though the trailing clause is slightly promotional.

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 read-oriented mapping tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys what is returned at a high level (modules, dependencies, hot paths, entry point) but omits the shape/format of the map and any limits, leaving the agent only minimally equipped.

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 100%, so the single 'root' parameter is already fully documented. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('project architecture map') and enumerates the concrete outputs (modules, dependencies, hot paths, entry point), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from code-focused siblings like code.understand, code.symbols, or code.trace.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Given several overlapping code-analysis siblings (code.understand, code.reach, code.trace), the description leaves the agent to infer which one to pick. Only 'instant' hints at a speed-oriented use case.

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