osnova_groundwork

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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the output budget (under 2048 code units) and the composition of the result (clusters, hubs, hotspots), plus the 'use once' sequencing constraint.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the usage rule. Every clause carries information; the size bound and the anti-pattern warning both earn their place.

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-only, zero-required-parameter summary tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, output composition and usage discipline, which is sufficient for correct invocation. It stops short of describing the shape or ordering of the returned map, which a description-only tool could mention.

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?

There is one optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents maxDirs and its default of 8. The description's reference to 'directory clusters' loosely matches the parameter, but adds no syntax or behavior beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource and its contents: a repository map of directory clusters, hubs and hotspots, bounded to under 2048 code units. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling osnova_outline by warning against following it with an outline of every directory.

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?

It gives a clear triggering condition ('use once when the repository is unfamiliar') plus an explicit anti-pattern ('do not follow it with an outline of every directory'), which implicitly routes the agent away from osnova_outline. The alternative is described behaviorally rather than named by tool, so it stops short of the explicit routing a 5 requires.

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