redcon_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: lightweight nature, cost (a few hundred tokens), and task-based filtering. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, but the 'map' phrasing implies a safe read operation. This is good value beyond the schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase earns its place. No filler or repetition.

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 simple overview tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, cost, and alternatives. It does not describe the output format in detail, but the concept of a 'map' is straightforward. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to make a confident selection decision.

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 50%; only 'task' is described in the schema. The description itself doesn't detail parameters but does tie 'task' to module filtering. The 'repo' parameter lacks any description but has a default value, reducing ambiguity. The description adds marginal value, but not enough to fully compensate for the gap.

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 produces a lightweight repository map grouped by directory and filtered to the task's modules. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool redcon_repo_map by noting that one should use that tool for signatures.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use to orient instead of ls -R or find' and 'For signatures, use redcon_repo_map.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool and what alternative to choose for a different need.

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