check_map

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose what kinds of problems it detects, but never states that it is read-only / non-mutating, whether it rewrites map.json, or how results are surfaced (pass/fail vs. list of issues).

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?

A single compact sentence with the subject (map.json coverage) front-loaded and the finding categories enumerated after a colon. Slightly telegraphic in its opening clause but no wasted text.

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 trivial zero-param tool this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description should indicate what comes back — e.g. whether it returns a boolean, a list of issues, or a count — which it does not. The mutation/safety profile is also unaddressed.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description needs to explain inputs, and it correctly presents itself as a no-argument check.

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?

Names the exact resource (.readfirst/map.json) and the check being performed — coverage still being valid — plus the three finding categories reported (ungrouped files, orphaned patterns, broken rules). It reads clearly as a staleness/lint check and is distinguishable from read_list/changed_read_list, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is run to validate the map file before or after code changes. There is no explicit when-to-use trigger, no prerequisites, and no mention of when the sibling tools would be the better choice.

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