cerebro_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as 'cheap' (implying low cost) and outlines output content, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. No contradictions, but could detail any side effects or permissions.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that convey purpose and usage guidance without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (so return values are covered), one optional parameter, and many sibling tools, the description is mostly complete. The only gap is the lack of explanation for the 'top' parameter, but overall it provides adequate context for selection and usage.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'top' parameter beyond its default. The parameter is somewhat self-explanatory as a limit, but the description should have clarified its meaning, especially given the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool provides a 'whole-project overview' with specific outputs: file/language counts and modules ranked by dependency centrality. It also distinguishes itself by recommending it as the first call in a new session, differentiating from sibling tools.

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 explicitly says 'Call this FIRST in a new session instead of exploring folders,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the directive is strong enough.

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