Map

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It conveys efficiency ('quick', 'both in one call') and scope ('project understanding'), but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what permissions or costs might apply. The non-destructive nature is strongly implied but not stated.

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 short, information-dense sentences with the preference statement front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place, and no content is unnecessarily repeated.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, invocation details are complete and the mode rules are actionable. The main gap is the lack of guidance for choosing between map and overlapping siblings such as graph or analyze, but the 'project understanding' framing covers most relevant use cases.

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 single detail parameter is already fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds task-oriented meaning by mapping each value to a use case ('quick project orientation', 'design/dependency structure') and by noting the efficiency of full in one call, which goes slightly beyond the schema's field listing.

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 identifies map as the tool for project understanding, with summary, architecture, and full modes. It does not state an explicit verb+resource like 'Generate a project map', and it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as graph or analyze, but it is far from vague or tautological.

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 says map is PREFERRED over Glob/ls/manual browsing for project understanding and gives precise mode-selection rules: summary for quick orientation, architecture for design/dependency structure, full for both. This is clear when-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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