Knowledge Map

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so no safety contradiction. The description discloses the weighting algorithm and the requirement for repo_path, providing useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Three efficient sentences that front-load the purpose, then usage, then a critical note. No unnecessary words.

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?

Lacks output format description, but use cases and constraints are well-covered. For a read-only query tool, this is mostly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the note about repo_path but does not elaborate on days or path beyond what the schema already provides. No semantic gap, but also no added value.

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 identifies who knows a file/directory best, using specific weighting criteria (recency, volume, commit frequency). It then lists concrete use cases (reviewer, silos, transitions), fully distinguishing it from sibling tools like hotspots or churn.

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 gives explicit use cases and a crucial prerequisite (provide repo_path if not in a git repo). It does not contrast directly with siblings, but the use cases imply when to choose this tool over alternatives like coupling or contributor_stats.

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