aplomo_understand_repo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict these. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action—no mention of scope limits, cost, auth, output shape, or whether it analyzes only local code versus external references.

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 a single 11-word sentence that front-loads the main action and contains no filler. Given the zero-parameter surface, this level of brevity is appropriate.

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 tool is simple, with no parameters and full annotation coverage, and the description conveys its purpose. Still, it does not indicate what the output looks like (list of technologies? symbol summaries? structure), and there is no output schema to compensate, so the definition is only minimally 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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no missing documentation for the description to supply; the no-parameter baseline is 4.

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 uses action verbs 'Detect' and 'summarize' and clearly scopes to 'modules and symbols in the repository.' It is immediately clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling analysis tools such as aplomo_find_existing_patterns or aplomo_review_architecture.

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?

There is no explicit statement about when to invoke this tool versus alternatives. The wording simply restates the tool's function; an agent would have to infer that repository reconnaissance is a prerequisite to the planning/review siblings, which is not stated.

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