Project map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds what each mode surfaces (files/languages/quality vs layers/dependencies/entry points), but says nothing about output size, cost, or whether 'full' is expensive on large repositories — the main behavioral risk for an overview tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then intent examples, then mode semantics, then usage timing — a sensible order with little waste. There is mild redundancy between the description's mode list and the enum's own descriptions, but nothing is padded.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the single optional parameter is fully covered; annotations cover safety. The only meaningful gap is guidance on when the richer 'architecture'/'full' modes are worth the extra output versus defaulting to 'summary'.

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% and the single enum is already documented in the schema; the description's mode explanations largely restate that text ('full' gives both appears in both places). Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work and the description adds only minor rephrasing.

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 and resource ('Get an overview of the project') and reinforces it with real user phrasings ('how is this structured', 'where do I start') plus a breakdown of the three detail modes. It does not explicitly name or contrast the siblings (search, find_symbol, graph, status), so an agent must infer that this is the orientation tool rather than a lookup tool.

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?

Gives clear timing guidance: 'Use it at the start of work in an unfamiliar repository, before you list directories or open files one by one.' That establishes when to use it and steers away from manual exploration, but it names no alternative sibling (e.g. status or index) and gives no when-not condition, such as skipping it in a repo you already know.

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