aplomo_understand_repo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention side effects, describe the scanning scope, or indicate what kind of output is returned. The verbs imply non-destructive behavior, but this is not made explicit.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word adds meaning, and the primary action is stated clearly at the beginning.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description conveys the broad purpose sufficiently, but it lacks usage context, expected output shape, and any caveats. Without annotations or an output schema, this minimal description leaves the agent to guess practical details about invocation and results.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, and the schema is fully covered by that fact (100% coverage). There is no parameter meaning to add, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 specific verbs ('Detect', 'summarize') and concrete resources (technologies, modules, symbols), making the tool's objective clear. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling review/plan/diff tools by focusing on repository-level comprehension rather than evaluation or modification.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as aplomo_review_architecture or aplomo_find_existing_patterns. The agent must infer appropriate usage solely from the tool name and generic description.

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