map

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. It only states the tool's purpose without addressing safety or non-obvious behaviors.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence immediately establishes the tool's recommendation, and the second provides clear instructions on the parameter values. No wasted 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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential purpose and usage. It could be more complete by mentioning that the output is structural, but the output schema likely fills this gap.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, fully describing the 'detail' parameter. The description adds usage context but does not introduce new semantic information beyond the schema, placing it at the baseline for high coverage.

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 is for 'project understanding' and contrasts with alternatives like Glob/ls/manual browsing. It specifies three modes (summary, architecture, full) with distinct purposes, making the tool's functionality unambiguous.

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 recommends when to use this tool over siblings and provides clear guidance on choosing detail levels. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with all sibling tools like 'health' or 'analyze'.

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