explain_doc_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool's nature ('guided map, not a keyword search'), implies it works over the indexed corpus, and indicates the kind of output (an explanation, not raw results). This is adequate for a read-only explanation tool, though it could mention limitations or fallback behavior.

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 sentences long, with the primary action front-loaded in the first sentence and usage guidance in the second. Every sentence contributes meaning, and there is no fluff or repetition. It is efficiently structured and easy to scan.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and its behavior in relation to sibling tools. With an output schema present, the return structure is already defined. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly describe the expected param values or examples, but given the simple optional params and clear intent, the context is sufficiently complete.

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 provides no descriptions for the two parameters, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains the 'goal' parameter by referencing 'what reading path fits a goal,' but it never explicitly states what values 'goal' or 'audience' should take. The parameter names and defaults are self-explanatory, so the description adds moderate but not full semantic value.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Explain how the Iggy documentation is organised and where to start.' It immediately distinguishes itself from a keyword search by labeling itself 'a guided map,' which differentiates it from sibling tools like search_docs. The scope is precise and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives explicit usage conditions: 'Use it when a user asks where docs live, what reading path fits a goal, or which documentation areas look thin from the indexed corpus.' It also states a negative condition: 'not a keyword search,' which signals when not to use it and points toward search_docs as the alternative. This is strong routing guidance.

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