repo_map

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 discloses the outputs (tree, count, entrypoints) and implies a non-destructive read operation via 'lightweight,' but does not mention possible side effects, permissions, or return format details. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, no filler. The key output list and usage guidance are front-loaded, making it both concise and scannable.

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 what the tool produces and when to use it, which is sufficient for an orientation tool given the schema documents the parameters. It lacks an explicit return format, but the listed outputs compensate. Overall, it is complete for its intended first-step role.

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 schema covers all three parameters (root, max_depth, max_entries) with descriptions, so the description adds little parameter-specific value. It implicitly relates to the parameters by listing outputs (tree = depth, entries = count, root = path), but does not go beyond the schema.

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 purpose with specific outputs: 'directory tree, file count, and likely entrypoints/manifests.' It uses a specific verb ('Build') and names the resource ('repository map'), making it distinct from sibling tools like search_code and pack_context.

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 explicit timing guidance with 'Use this first to orient before reading files,' placing it before other tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes its role clear relative to the sibling tools.

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