veto_project_map_get

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, which is consistent with the description. The description adds context that this tool uses a stored map and avoids filesystem scanning, which is behavioral insight beyond the annotation. However, it does not mention potential staleness or behavior if no map exists, but given annotations, this is a minor gap.

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 two clear sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and then provides usage context, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose and usage context. However, since there is no output schema, the description could be slightly more specific about what the 'project structure map' contains (e.g., files, directories, tree).

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 covers the single parameter project_dir with a full description. The tool description does not add any additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a stored project structure map for a directory, with a specific action 'Returns'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like veto_project_map_update by implying this is a read operation, and the use case of navigating without filesystem scanning is explicit.

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 'Use to navigate the codebase without scanning the filesystem', giving a clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternative approaches, but the sibling context (e.g., veto_project_map_update) implies when not to use it (i.e., when you need to update the map).

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