redcon_repo_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: the output is token-budgeted and it degrades to a path-only listing without the redcon[symbols] extra. This gives the agent clear expectations, though it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, which is implied.

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 three concise sentences that lead with the tool's purpose, then cover usage and degradation behavior. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description covers the core output and usage context, but the required 'task' parameter is undefined, and the ranking criteria for 'top ranked' are opaque. With no output schema or annotations, the agent still faces ambiguity about the expected input and details of the result.

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 the description must compensate. It indirectly explains 'budget' via 'token budget' and 'top_files' via 'top ranked files', but the required 'task' parameter is left entirely unexplained, leaving a significant gap for correct invocation.

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 that the tool generates a repo map with top-ranked files, class/function signatures, and line numbers under a token budget. The phrase 'Use for code structure across many files at once' distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying its broad scope.

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 provides an explicit usage context: 'Use for code structure across many files at once.' This tells the agent when to select this tool, though it does not mention specific alternatives or circumstances where it should not be used.

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