map_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the fingerprint comparison is optional and is used to detect staleness, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about output shape, cost, or auth needs.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the primary action first and the optional secondary action second, with no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only status tool with no output schema and two undocumented-in-schema params, the description conveys the general intent but omits the return structure (what 'counts' look like) and the meaning of project_id, leaving the agent to guess at invocation details.

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 0%, so the description carries the load for two params. It usefully clarifies that source_fingerprint is an optional local fingerprint used for staleness comparison, but project_id is left entirely unexplained and no format or example values are given.

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 ('Report') and resource ('map counts'), plus the staleness-comparison function, which distinguishes it from the map-family siblings like map_find_symbol and map_dependency_graph. However, the terms 'hosted source-free map' and 'local source fingerprint' are internal jargon that an agent cannot fully resolve from the text alone.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the ingest_code_map / export_code_map siblings it logically relates to. The agent must infer the context entirely.

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