explain_doc_map

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context, which it does by revealing this is an orientation/map tool whose output reflects 'the indexed corpus' and can flag thin areas. It stops short of describing the response shape, but an output schema exists to carry that.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the disambiguation and usage cues. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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, return values needn't be explained; the description adequately covers purpose, when to use, and the tool's non-search nature. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented 'audience' parameter.

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% and there are two optional params. The phrase 'reading path fits a goal' implies the role of the 'goal' param, but 'audience' is never mentioned in the description or schema, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 ('Explain') and resource (the LaserData documentation organisation) and explicitly distinguishes itself from keyword-based siblings with 'This is a guided map, not a keyword search.' An agent can separate it from search_docs, list_docs, and get_doc without opening the schema.

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 triggering conditions: where docs live, which reading path fits a goal, which areas look thin. It also implicitly excludes search-style use via 'not a keyword search,' though it does not name search_docs as the alternative, so routing still requires a small inference.

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