redcon_repo_map

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses graceful degradation: 'Degrades to a path-only listing when the redcon[symbols] extra is missing rather than failing.' Also mentions token budget fitting. Sufficient for a read-only mapping tool.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, and fallback behavior.

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?

Covers main behavior, sibling comparison, and graceful degradation. No output schema exists, so return format is implied. Minor gap: 'task' parameter role is unclear, but overall sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the 'budget' parameter indirectly and mentions 'top ranked files' and 'signatures'. However, the 'task' parameter (required) is not explained, and 'repo' and 'top_files' are not described. Partial 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 specifies the tool provides a repo map of top ranked files with class/function signatures and line numbers under a token budget. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'redcon_overview' by noting it emits actual signatures, not just paths.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use when you need code structure across many files at once - one call replaces opening files one by one.' Contrasts with redcon_overview. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear.

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