redcon_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as 'lightweight' and mentions token cost, giving a sense of performance. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or discuss potential side effects. Given the absence of annotations, the description is fairly transparent about behavior.

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 concise with two sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It efficiently covers usage, cost, and alternatives.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It states the purpose, usage context, cost, and provides a sibling for comparison. However, it does not specify the return format or any limitations (e.g., on repository size), which would enhance completeness.

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 two parameters: 'repo' (no description) and 'task' (description: 'Task description'). Schema description coverage is 50%. The description adds context by explaining that the tool filters to modules relevant to the task, clarifying the role of the 'task' parameter. However, it does not explain the 'repo' parameter beyond its default. This adds some value beyond the schema but not fully.

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's function: 'Lightweight repository map grouped by directory, filtered to modules relevant to the task.' It specifies the verb (map), resource (repository), and distinguishes from sibling 'redcon_repo_map' by noting that the sibling is for actual code structure.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when orienting in an unfamiliar repo instead of ls -R, find, or reading READMEs.' Also provides a cost indication ('a few hundred tokens') and an alternative tool: 'For actual code structure (signatures), use redcon_repo_map instead.'

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