repo_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds a key behavioral fact: 'Honors .gitignore.' It also implies read-only behavior via 'lightweight map' and orientation. However, it does not elaborate on edge cases (e.g., symlinks, file content exclusion), but for a mapping tool this is adequate.

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 just two sentences: the first defines the tool's core function and outputs, the second provides usage guidance and a key behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no waste, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what it produces, when to use it, and a notable behavior. It does not detail return format, but that is partially inferred from the listed outputs. Sibling differentiation could be stronger, but overall it is reasonably complete.

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 100%, with all three parameters (root, max_depth, max_entries) explained in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Build a lightweight repository map: directory tree, file count, and likely entrypoints/manifests.' It specifies the verb (build), resource (repository map), and concrete outputs. This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_code (searching) and pack_context (packing) by framing it as an orientation tool.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this first to orient before reading files,' providing clear guidance on when to use the tool. It implies an ordering relative to sibling tools but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a flawless 5.

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