get_project_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it confirms 'no side effects', suggests a cheap orientation call pattern, and specifies the return shape. This exceeds the annotation baseline without contradicting it.

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?

Four concise sentences front-load the core behavior and return shape. The 'Read-only, no side effects' clause is slightly redundant with annotations, but the rest earns its place by adding usage guidance and output fields.

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 is complete for a simple, optional-parameter read-only tool. It names the return JSON fields, gives a recommended invocation, and explains the tool's role. It could mention symbolCount semantics or potential costs, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents the only parameter. The description adds the session-start use case for summary_only=true, which is helpful, but it does not add meaning beyond what the parameter description already conveys.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('project map') and enumerates contents (frameworks, languages, file counts, structure). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_outline or get_context_bundle, but the term 'project map' combined with the described fields is clear enough for an agent to understand what it returns.

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?

Provides clear usage context: call at session start with summary_only=true to orient before diving into code, and use instead of manual ls/find. It does not discuss when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the intended scenario is explicit and actionable.

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